MAF Kits and Performance Chips from ProMAX Motorsport
06-11-2006, 12:21 PM
#16
Track Day
Join Date: May 2006
Location: eastern,pa.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be willing to do a before and after dyno on a stock '87 3.2 please email me @ criv911@enter.net
06-11-2006, 12:26 PM
#17
Track Day
Join Date: May 2006
Location: eastern,pa.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dyno testing
I would be willing to do before and after testing on my '87 3.2 please emailme @ criv911@enter.net .
06-11-2006, 12:38 PM
#18
Track Day
Join Date: May 2006
Location: eastern,pa.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dyno testing
I would do dyno testing on my stock '87 3.2 if you are interested email me @ criv911@enter.net
07-05-2006, 05:13 PM
#20
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Birmingham, Ala.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before/After Dyno results
Andrew,
I own a 1988 3.2 which is currently being rebuilt by Jerry Woods Enterprises.
It will be rebuilt stock with the exception of SSI exhaust. I asked if they would preform a "before" and "after" with your set-up. They would be glad to do it and provide the results for publication. Here it is- a completely controlled environment- and a renowned and reputible engine builder with a dyno. I'll be happy to pay retail for your product if your product claims can be verified.
Anxious to hear your response.
Thanks,
John@docupak.com
I own a 1988 3.2 which is currently being rebuilt by Jerry Woods Enterprises.
It will be rebuilt stock with the exception of SSI exhaust. I asked if they would preform a "before" and "after" with your set-up. They would be glad to do it and provide the results for publication. Here it is- a completely controlled environment- and a renowned and reputible engine builder with a dyno. I'll be happy to pay retail for your product if your product claims can be verified.
Anxious to hear your response.
Thanks,
John@docupak.com
07-13-2006, 09:48 AM
#22
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys
To give some feedback on my experience with MAF kits (Mine is autothority; chips suck by the way)...
At least in my 951, everything changed! My throttle response was slightly sharper, my boost controller had to be turned down slightly to get the boost level where it originally was, and I even had a hesitation at ~5000 rpms @ WOT and it was fixed when Ichanged to MAF.
On the downside, I find them really expensive though. I bought mine at a real bargain from a friend. If your future plans are a standalone, don't waste the money on the MAF kit, BUT if your a stock kinda guy, it's a really good upgrade...
Maybe if you guys lowered the price even more you'll have more selling volume, or even better, make a group buy. There's a couple of MAF kit competition out there.
To give some feedback on my experience with MAF kits (Mine is autothority; chips suck by the way)...
At least in my 951, everything changed! My throttle response was slightly sharper, my boost controller had to be turned down slightly to get the boost level where it originally was, and I even had a hesitation at ~5000 rpms @ WOT and it was fixed when Ichanged to MAF.
On the downside, I find them really expensive though. I bought mine at a real bargain from a friend. If your future plans are a standalone, don't waste the money on the MAF kit, BUT if your a stock kinda guy, it's a really good upgrade...
Maybe if you guys lowered the price even more you'll have more selling volume, or even better, make a group buy. There's a couple of MAF kit competition out there.
08-15-2006, 08:49 AM
#23
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by pete recio
Hi Andrew,
in the recent edition of 911 & Porsche World, the results on Steve Bennett's 3.2 were disappointing. It was felt that the reasons may have to do with broken hoses / other problems with the car. Are you any further down the track in ascertaining the reasons?
regards
peter
in the recent edition of 911 & Porsche World, the results on Steve Bennett's 3.2 were disappointing. It was felt that the reasons may have to do with broken hoses / other problems with the car. Are you any further down the track in ascertaining the reasons?
regards
peter
Only just picked this message up.
The 911PW 944 was down on power by 20bhp. We did re-map the MAF chip to try and compensate - but no amount of tuning can compensate for that sort of power loss. The car (as I understand it) is now sold.
Other 944 models have been OK. The 951 responds really well to the SciVision MAF kit with good results from both the 911 3.2 and 964. We had one 911 3.2 that didn't show any benefit (had a mega performance chip already and other mods). Others have responded very well with most owners extremely pleased with the resultant improvement in throttle response and drivability. Power and torque gains will vary a lot from car to car but should be 18 to 25bhp with the MAF kit fitted. The larger displacment of the 964 means that this model usually responds best.
Regards,
Andrew
11-08-2006, 01:04 AM
#25
Rennlist Member
I would be willing to do the dyno test. I have a recently purchased 1989 Cab with 46k miles. There is also a local shop where I go with my Dino that can do the test. PM me if you are interested. I am in Los Angeles.
12-01-2006, 08:10 PM
#27
Maybe this will or maybe this won't help shed some light on what a 3.2 stock dyno run "might look like" against the MAF.
We took some dyno runs we did this fall on our 1987 3.2 (US). The car has 100k miles on it however we put in new rings and did the heads at abour 97k. So you could say it is a fresh motor.
Taking Andy's dyno run result with their MAF, our dyno run with our stock 3.2 and just for giggles a run with a mod we are doing, and created an "arguable" graph. Understand that in some sense we could be mixing apples with oranges or olives with grapes, but what the heck its just for fun.
Taking Andy's graph we converted the kw in hp using a value of (1)kw= (1) 1.341022 hp (if we are wrong then throw us the right correct conversion). We then (visually) attempted to better expand upon both the kw values and rpm values on the chart; naturally we are using an eye and a ruler to dissect.
The blue line respresents Andy's RadLeistung = Power at the wheels . I kinda like RWHP when talking about power because it is more easily verified given the number of chassis dyno's vs. engine dyno's available for us to play with.
The green line or "Kuehl Stock" is our 87 3.2 we mentioned, which was a stock run except we played with the DME's fuel quality pot switch that day, so things were running a tad too rich. Normally we would run around 14.5-14.75 AFR in loop whereas on this run she was rich at mid 12's in loop and bit richer under WOT (actually I think if we had been leaner our hp values would be higher.... save that for another day).
The red line or "Kuehl Mod" is thrown in here just for fun. Truthfully I'm laughing because we had a "failure" we'll call it at around 5100 rpms. Had we not had the failure we probably would be replacing rings and things. Anyway it's there to laugh about.
The left side of the chart is RWHP, the bottom of the chart is RPM's in the one decimal K scale.
I always wondered what my 3.2's flywheel hp was so I took out my handy PCA, The Porsche Family Tree, and turned to page 21, which implies my 3.2 is around "217 DIN". I don't know what "DIN" stands for other than the connectors on my stereo so we looked in up in the handy dandy Wikipedia and they say "DIN horsepower is the power measured according to the German standard DIN 70020. It is measured at the flywheel, and is in practical terms equivalent to the SAE net figure. However, be aware that DIN "horsepower" is often expressed in metric (Pferdestärke) rather than mechanical horsepower."
I kinda like the wording "practical". It is almost like say "basically" or "about". So for practical purposes we say 217 DIN hp is almost like 217 "SAE" hp, provide however you practically have time to read standard J1349. All this makes for great conversation over many many Becks, or Bud's or Corona's etc.
Anyway if we "assume" my 3.2 from the factory was 217 hp at the flywheel (it if is still in one piece, never try fly-cutting a flywheel to save money) and the green stock dyno run on my 3.2 showed it max'd out at 174.8 rwhp. If you do the math that is about a 20% loss between the flywheel and the rollers on the chassis dyno. So I'm happy to live with the notion that I have a 20% loss between the motor and the road on a given day on a given chassis dyno.
"Assuming" we take Andy's blue RadLeistung = Power at the wheels that reported a rwhp of 140 kw and convert that to hp then the chart shows that car was pushing 188.4136 rwhp. (where I'm confused is whether that is with or without the MAF so chime in here Andy). If our cars were exactly alike and if it was the same day on the same dyno at the same engine temps, you would be able to say that the blue line represents a 13.61 more rwhp.
I don't know if the dyno chart will appear in this post. We are getting hammered with and electrical storm and our Belkin (junk) UPS just took a hit.
So we'll just play it as it goes.
[IMG][/IMG]
We took some dyno runs we did this fall on our 1987 3.2 (US). The car has 100k miles on it however we put in new rings and did the heads at abour 97k. So you could say it is a fresh motor.
Taking Andy's dyno run result with their MAF, our dyno run with our stock 3.2 and just for giggles a run with a mod we are doing, and created an "arguable" graph. Understand that in some sense we could be mixing apples with oranges or olives with grapes, but what the heck its just for fun.
Taking Andy's graph we converted the kw in hp using a value of (1)kw= (1) 1.341022 hp (if we are wrong then throw us the right correct conversion). We then (visually) attempted to better expand upon both the kw values and rpm values on the chart; naturally we are using an eye and a ruler to dissect.
The blue line respresents Andy's RadLeistung = Power at the wheels . I kinda like RWHP when talking about power because it is more easily verified given the number of chassis dyno's vs. engine dyno's available for us to play with.
The green line or "Kuehl Stock" is our 87 3.2 we mentioned, which was a stock run except we played with the DME's fuel quality pot switch that day, so things were running a tad too rich. Normally we would run around 14.5-14.75 AFR in loop whereas on this run she was rich at mid 12's in loop and bit richer under WOT (actually I think if we had been leaner our hp values would be higher.... save that for another day).
The red line or "Kuehl Mod" is thrown in here just for fun. Truthfully I'm laughing because we had a "failure" we'll call it at around 5100 rpms. Had we not had the failure we probably would be replacing rings and things. Anyway it's there to laugh about.
The left side of the chart is RWHP, the bottom of the chart is RPM's in the one decimal K scale.
I always wondered what my 3.2's flywheel hp was so I took out my handy PCA, The Porsche Family Tree, and turned to page 21, which implies my 3.2 is around "217 DIN". I don't know what "DIN" stands for other than the connectors on my stereo so we looked in up in the handy dandy Wikipedia and they say "DIN horsepower is the power measured according to the German standard DIN 70020. It is measured at the flywheel, and is in practical terms equivalent to the SAE net figure. However, be aware that DIN "horsepower" is often expressed in metric (Pferdestärke) rather than mechanical horsepower."
I kinda like the wording "practical". It is almost like say "basically" or "about". So for practical purposes we say 217 DIN hp is almost like 217 "SAE" hp, provide however you practically have time to read standard J1349. All this makes for great conversation over many many Becks, or Bud's or Corona's etc.
Anyway if we "assume" my 3.2 from the factory was 217 hp at the flywheel (it if is still in one piece, never try fly-cutting a flywheel to save money) and the green stock dyno run on my 3.2 showed it max'd out at 174.8 rwhp. If you do the math that is about a 20% loss between the flywheel and the rollers on the chassis dyno. So I'm happy to live with the notion that I have a 20% loss between the motor and the road on a given day on a given chassis dyno.
"Assuming" we take Andy's blue RadLeistung = Power at the wheels that reported a rwhp of 140 kw and convert that to hp then the chart shows that car was pushing 188.4136 rwhp. (where I'm confused is whether that is with or without the MAF so chime in here Andy). If our cars were exactly alike and if it was the same day on the same dyno at the same engine temps, you would be able to say that the blue line represents a 13.61 more rwhp.
I don't know if the dyno chart will appear in this post. We are getting hammered with and electrical storm and our Belkin (junk) UPS just took a hit.
So we'll just play it as it goes.
[IMG][/IMG]
Last edited by griffiths; 12-03-2006 at 11:34 AM.
12-02-2006, 01:38 PM
#28
"So I'm happy to live with the notion that I have a 20% loss between the motor and the road on a given day on a given chassis dyno."
So, you put your engine on a flywheel dyno and then re-installed the same motor in a car
and then did a chassis dyno to calculate the loss, right? If not, determining the loss any
other way (using factory numbers) is a total waste, i.e. could be 15-22% then.
Bottomline: Anytime one quotes factory numbers NOT knowing ALL the factory conditions
& setup and then trying to compare to RWHP on an XYZ dyno is a joke.
So, you put your engine on a flywheel dyno and then re-installed the same motor in a car
and then did a chassis dyno to calculate the loss, right? If not, determining the loss any
other way (using factory numbers) is a total waste, i.e. could be 15-22% then.
Bottomline: Anytime one quotes factory numbers NOT knowing ALL the factory conditions
& setup and then trying to compare to RWHP on an XYZ dyno is a joke.
12-02-2006, 02:29 PM
#29
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land of Milfs and honey (SoCal)
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Dyno numbers can be misleading, depends on when the dyno was calibrated last, ambient temp, gear the run was made in, tire size, wether or not your gear box has synthetic oil, etc.
I was at a dyno day not too long ago, where everyone's cars were putting out low numbers, nice and cool outside, so everyone thought the dyno had to be off, then a stock GTI hit the rollers and made about what a stock GTI does at the wheels. So you never know.
I was at a dyno day not too long ago, where everyone's cars were putting out low numbers, nice and cool outside, so everyone thought the dyno had to be off, then a stock GTI hit the rollers and made about what a stock GTI does at the wheels. So you never know.
12-02-2006, 07:49 PM
#30
"So, you put your engine on a flywheel dyno and then re-installed the same motor in a car and then did a chassis dyno to calculate the loss, right?"
No. The two dyno runs shown for the car (green and red) were both done on a Dynojet chassis dyno the same day. One before the "mod" and one with the mod.
Bottomline: Anytime one quotes factory numbers NOT knowing ALL the factory conditions & setup and then trying to compare to RWHP on an XYZ dyno is a joke.
Sorry we missed your joke. The post is not "seriously' attempting to state any base line for our vehicle or the MAF vehicle. It was simply a point of reference since the thread started without any......maybe this won't help shed some light on what a 3.2 stock dyno run might look like against the MAF.
I think we all know that the 217 was probably Porsche's "best" mean or average and most likely was conservative in habit.
But thanks for keeping us all awake.
No. The two dyno runs shown for the car (green and red) were both done on a Dynojet chassis dyno the same day. One before the "mod" and one with the mod.
Bottomline: Anytime one quotes factory numbers NOT knowing ALL the factory conditions & setup and then trying to compare to RWHP on an XYZ dyno is a joke.
Sorry we missed your joke. The post is not "seriously' attempting to state any base line for our vehicle or the MAF vehicle. It was simply a point of reference since the thread started without any......maybe this won't help shed some light on what a 3.2 stock dyno run might look like against the MAF.
I think we all know that the 217 was probably Porsche's "best" mean or average and most likely was conservative in habit.
But thanks for keeping us all awake.
Last edited by griffiths; 12-05-2006 at 10:35 PM.