John took my car to the dyno today...LONG
02-15-2003, 03:32 AM
#1
Race Car
Thread Starter
John took my car to the dyno today...LONG
<img src="http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/pbef1e7f86d6f92bc654434fcbffdecf3/fca395ec.jpg" alt=" - " />
251.7 RWHP and 239.1 RWTQ at 4 psi. This is a welcome improvement over the initial 229 RWHP and 212 RWTQ my car put down last September at the <a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010896#000000" target="_blank">NorCal Dyno Day</a>. My baseline dyno with the stock car from last year was 198 RWHP and 190 RWTQ, same dyno that we used for this latest run.
In September we tried using a completely stock fuel system...since the factory FPR has a vacuum nipple we just wanted to see if it could compensate the boost with more fuel. This didn't work but it was definitely worth a try! What happened was the mixture went way lean [~15:1] when the boost hit at 3k RPM and gradually richened up to ~12:1 by 6k RPM, which resulted in MASSIVE timing retard as the knock sensors were telling the DME to pull back timing [6 degrees?] as much as they possibly could! Obviously this wasn't what we wanted so John put an adjustable FPR on my car and took it back to the dyno.
While my car was down at John's shop he replaced the front seals, water pump, thermostat, belts, rollers, and did a COMPLETE detail of my engine! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> He even installed some additional lights under the hood after I told him that the only time I'm able to work on my car is when I get home from work at 10pm every night!! This was completely unexpected and I'm impressed by how clean this addition looks. He did some other things like adjust the idle, addressed a leak that developed from the conversion, and has really done an incredible job on this engine:
<img src="http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/p93f5b0600dc578d700d9040ea9a139a4/fca395ed.jpg" alt=" - " />
Now what I really enjoyed doing this afternoon was studying the dyno chart. Here's what I've got so far:
<img src="http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/pd11dc26380adfcf198508689efedcf4f/fca39356.jpg" alt=" - " />
Our air/fuel mixture can still be improved. I was trying some aftermarket software that this dyno shop developed and in order to get more power from the normally aspirated 968 it looks like they added more fuel on the top end. You can see from the chart that the air/fuel mixture goes way rich [off the chart] after 4500 RPM. This is costing us torque and ultimately peak power. We're going to try another chip early next week to see if we can get a flat air/fuel curve from 4k RPM till redline. If this doesn't work I spoke to Danno a bit today and he's confident he can come up with something to get the mixture straightened out no problem.
We've also got a lean condition when full boost hits at 3k RPM. This is the trade-off for using an adjustable FPR to manipulate the mixture VS. a custom chip, piggy back computer, or stand-alone system. Anyway, this lean condition is causing the knock sensors to signal first stage timing retard to the DME. Thanks to Konstantin we've established this value to be 3 degrees. You can see by the first blue circle that we get 10 lb-ft of torque back after the timing is restored by the DME when it detects the mixture is okay [no knock] and this is further shown by the air/fuel graph on the bottom of the dyno sheet...the red lines indicate APPROXIMATELY where we'd like to see the air/fuel curve reside.
I'd also like to make note of the Variocam activation in this dyno chart. Variocam retards intake timing by 15 degrees at 5500 RPM and remains active until redline. What we're seeing is that torque PLUMMETS with the Variocam activated. I'm guessing there's just too much overlap to hold the boost or we're simply not revving the engine high enough to take advantage of this aggressive valve timing, so the torque drops abruptly past 5500 RPM.
John simply put the car on the dyno and had it tuned the best he could after 1 and 1/2 pulls. The guy at the dyno shop says we've got an EASY 15 horsepower waiting for us when the air/fuel is cleaned up in the spots I mentioned. This would put us around 265 RWHP with broad peak torque from 3k to 5500 RPM at 4 psi!!! We might even broaden the torque more by removing the Variocam, which could prevent it from dropping off at 5500 RPM and beyond and push us past 270 RWHP.
Anyway, that's the story on our setup right now. Before I post this topic though I want to thank John Anderson for all the beautiful work he's done on this car. I would never have had the opportunity to learn so much and enjoy a turbocharged 968 without him! He's a true asset to the front-engined Porsche community with some of the best human character I've come across yet! He's let me stay at his house after bringing my car down, he paid for a plane ticket for me to return home one weekend when completion was delayed due to circumstances he couldn't prevent, he wouldn't even allow me to buy him a drink on the hottest damb days, he always insisted that I was the guest and treated me to a nice cold beverage...this guy has really gone above and beyond what I'd expect ANYONE to do for me. Here's to you John, you fvcking rock!
251.7 RWHP and 239.1 RWTQ at 4 psi. This is a welcome improvement over the initial 229 RWHP and 212 RWTQ my car put down last September at the <a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010896#000000" target="_blank">NorCal Dyno Day</a>. My baseline dyno with the stock car from last year was 198 RWHP and 190 RWTQ, same dyno that we used for this latest run.
In September we tried using a completely stock fuel system...since the factory FPR has a vacuum nipple we just wanted to see if it could compensate the boost with more fuel. This didn't work but it was definitely worth a try! What happened was the mixture went way lean [~15:1] when the boost hit at 3k RPM and gradually richened up to ~12:1 by 6k RPM, which resulted in MASSIVE timing retard as the knock sensors were telling the DME to pull back timing [6 degrees?] as much as they possibly could! Obviously this wasn't what we wanted so John put an adjustable FPR on my car and took it back to the dyno.
While my car was down at John's shop he replaced the front seals, water pump, thermostat, belts, rollers, and did a COMPLETE detail of my engine! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> He even installed some additional lights under the hood after I told him that the only time I'm able to work on my car is when I get home from work at 10pm every night!! This was completely unexpected and I'm impressed by how clean this addition looks. He did some other things like adjust the idle, addressed a leak that developed from the conversion, and has really done an incredible job on this engine:
<img src="http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/p93f5b0600dc578d700d9040ea9a139a4/fca395ed.jpg" alt=" - " />
Now what I really enjoyed doing this afternoon was studying the dyno chart. Here's what I've got so far:
<img src="http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid51/pd11dc26380adfcf198508689efedcf4f/fca39356.jpg" alt=" - " />
Our air/fuel mixture can still be improved. I was trying some aftermarket software that this dyno shop developed and in order to get more power from the normally aspirated 968 it looks like they added more fuel on the top end. You can see from the chart that the air/fuel mixture goes way rich [off the chart] after 4500 RPM. This is costing us torque and ultimately peak power. We're going to try another chip early next week to see if we can get a flat air/fuel curve from 4k RPM till redline. If this doesn't work I spoke to Danno a bit today and he's confident he can come up with something to get the mixture straightened out no problem.
We've also got a lean condition when full boost hits at 3k RPM. This is the trade-off for using an adjustable FPR to manipulate the mixture VS. a custom chip, piggy back computer, or stand-alone system. Anyway, this lean condition is causing the knock sensors to signal first stage timing retard to the DME. Thanks to Konstantin we've established this value to be 3 degrees. You can see by the first blue circle that we get 10 lb-ft of torque back after the timing is restored by the DME when it detects the mixture is okay [no knock] and this is further shown by the air/fuel graph on the bottom of the dyno sheet...the red lines indicate APPROXIMATELY where we'd like to see the air/fuel curve reside.
I'd also like to make note of the Variocam activation in this dyno chart. Variocam retards intake timing by 15 degrees at 5500 RPM and remains active until redline. What we're seeing is that torque PLUMMETS with the Variocam activated. I'm guessing there's just too much overlap to hold the boost or we're simply not revving the engine high enough to take advantage of this aggressive valve timing, so the torque drops abruptly past 5500 RPM.
John simply put the car on the dyno and had it tuned the best he could after 1 and 1/2 pulls. The guy at the dyno shop says we've got an EASY 15 horsepower waiting for us when the air/fuel is cleaned up in the spots I mentioned. This would put us around 265 RWHP with broad peak torque from 3k to 5500 RPM at 4 psi!!! We might even broaden the torque more by removing the Variocam, which could prevent it from dropping off at 5500 RPM and beyond and push us past 270 RWHP.
Anyway, that's the story on our setup right now. Before I post this topic though I want to thank John Anderson for all the beautiful work he's done on this car. I would never have had the opportunity to learn so much and enjoy a turbocharged 968 without him! He's a true asset to the front-engined Porsche community with some of the best human character I've come across yet! He's let me stay at his house after bringing my car down, he paid for a plane ticket for me to return home one weekend when completion was delayed due to circumstances he couldn't prevent, he wouldn't even allow me to buy him a drink on the hottest damb days, he always insisted that I was the guest and treated me to a nice cold beverage...this guy has really gone above and beyond what I'd expect ANYONE to do for me. Here's to you John, you fvcking rock!
02-15-2003, 04:14 AM
#2
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks great Trevor! That HP curve is nearly a straight line. Did the little twisty corkscrew turbo->intake tube get powdercoatded black, or is that just the reflection looking different? Can't wait to see where the project goes.
02-15-2003, 09:17 AM
#4
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very curious about your car and have been following it for a while now as you make progress. The reason I am so interested is that I would like to turbocharge my S2. After reading this post, do you think I would obtain better results with the S2 because of it not having the variocam??? Also I realize that it is not a big difference but the S2's engine has slightly lower static compression, would I be able to run a little more boost?? What kind of boost are these superharger kits adding to stock S2s, could I reach the same level of boost but with the higher efficiency of a turbo make more horsepower?? Also what kind of fuel was used for this pull??
02-15-2003, 01:40 PM
#5
Race Car
Thread Starter
Bart, I think you've got the right idea with all of your questions. The dyno run was done on 91 octance sh1tty California gas. Your car will not experience a dive in torque over 5500 RPM the way that my 968 has, and the most exciting part is how easily you can install a factory 951 intercooler under the nose panel, so there's no reason NOT to go intercooled. My car will require a lot of fabrication to intercool because there isn't a nose panel...therefore I'd have to remove the plastic trim in the front of the engine bay, cut away some of the metal underneath, and remove my hood latch completely then replace with hood pins. All this stuff doesn't excite me.
Being non-intercooled my car is running on less boost than possible when intercooled. John is just about finished with a turbocharged S2 that's running 6 psi with an intercooler. The greater efficiency of a turbo should definitely result in greater torque AND horsepower. I think the supercharged 3 liters are running 5-6 psi. You won't really be able to run more boost on an S2 than a 968 because the compression is basically the same [10.9/11:1] but the cams in the S2 are definitely worth some top end power!
Joe, the intake pipes are black.
Being non-intercooled my car is running on less boost than possible when intercooled. John is just about finished with a turbocharged S2 that's running 6 psi with an intercooler. The greater efficiency of a turbo should definitely result in greater torque AND horsepower. I think the supercharged 3 liters are running 5-6 psi. You won't really be able to run more boost on an S2 than a 968 because the compression is basically the same [10.9/11:1] but the cams in the S2 are definitely worth some top end power!
Joe, the intake pipes are black.
02-15-2003, 06:29 PM
#7
Race Director
"Variocam retards intake timing by 15 degrees at 5500 RPM and remains active until redline. What we're seeing is that torque PLUMMETS with the Variocam activated. I'm guessing there's just too much overlap to hold the boost or we're simply not revving the engine high enough to take advantage of this aggressive valve timing, so the torque drops abruptly past 5500 RPM."
I think there's a couple of different factors here. Retarding the intake cam would result in less overlap and the later intake-valve closing would help high-end torque & HP. I suspect that Porsche's cam specs on the VarioCam isn't quite as optimized as say... Honda's VTEC which uses a completely different cam-lobe with different lift & timing profiles, as opposed just twisting the cam like VarioCam. On those cars, you see a twin-peak torque curve, one at the low end and one at the high-end with a wide flat valley stretched out between them.
The drop in high-RPM torque is more likely due to your excessively rich fuel-mixtures. Years ago when I installed my MAF-4 kit and followed the tuning instructions, it was way, way too rich unbeknownst to me. So when I leaned out the 10.0:1 mixture to a more reasonable 12.0:1, I picked up 70hp & 70lb-ft TQ in the upper end!!!
I think there's a couple of different factors here. Retarding the intake cam would result in less overlap and the later intake-valve closing would help high-end torque & HP. I suspect that Porsche's cam specs on the VarioCam isn't quite as optimized as say... Honda's VTEC which uses a completely different cam-lobe with different lift & timing profiles, as opposed just twisting the cam like VarioCam. On those cars, you see a twin-peak torque curve, one at the low end and one at the high-end with a wide flat valley stretched out between them.
The drop in high-RPM torque is more likely due to your excessively rich fuel-mixtures. Years ago when I installed my MAF-4 kit and followed the tuning instructions, it was way, way too rich unbeknownst to me. So when I leaned out the 10.0:1 mixture to a more reasonable 12.0:1, I picked up 70hp & 70lb-ft TQ in the upper end!!!
Trending Topics
02-15-2003, 07:14 PM
#8
Race Car
Thread Starter
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Danno:
<strong>So when I leaned out the 10.0:1 mixture to a more reasonable 12.0:1, I picked up 70hp & 70lb-ft TQ in the upper end!!!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Uh, HOLY CRAP! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> If I got that much more performance I'd run and hide from my car, it would be INSANELY fast!
BLARGH, I keep messing up my understanding of this Variocam ****. You're correct about LESS overlap with retarded intake opening, and the 'dynamic supercharging' effect that occurs when the intake valve is closed later. But since the intake valve is closing later there's 'flow reversal' taking place, where the boost is being pushed right back into the intake manifold instead of being contained and burned to produce greater torque. I'll call you up in a little bit to discuss...
On EDIT: Hey schlag. Uhh, I didn't work on that game so don't blame me!!!
I think EA games are notorious for having memory leaks and using EXCESSIVE cpu resources while running. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
<strong>So when I leaned out the 10.0:1 mixture to a more reasonable 12.0:1, I picked up 70hp & 70lb-ft TQ in the upper end!!!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Uh, HOLY CRAP! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> If I got that much more performance I'd run and hide from my car, it would be INSANELY fast!
BLARGH, I keep messing up my understanding of this Variocam ****. You're correct about LESS overlap with retarded intake opening, and the 'dynamic supercharging' effect that occurs when the intake valve is closed later. But since the intake valve is closing later there's 'flow reversal' taking place, where the boost is being pushed right back into the intake manifold instead of being contained and burned to produce greater torque. I'll call you up in a little bit to discuss...
On EDIT: Hey schlag. Uhh, I didn't work on that game so don't blame me!!!
I think EA games are notorious for having memory leaks and using EXCESSIVE cpu resources while running. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
02-15-2003, 09:16 PM
#9
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ South
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by PorscheG96:
<strong>On EDIT: Hey schlag. Uhh, I didn't work on that game so don't blame me!!! I think EA games are notorious for having memory leaks and using EXCESSIVE cpu resources while running. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">HAHA..! Yes this is true regarding EA games. I think console is their strong suit. The SC4 graphics are GOOD but not so good that people with 1GB of ram should be lagging out. Anyhow, I will continue to enjoy SC3000 until patch #6 or #7 - when the gameplay issues are resolved!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<strong>On EDIT: Hey schlag. Uhh, I didn't work on that game so don't blame me!!!
I think EA games are notorious for having memory leaks and using EXCESSIVE cpu resources while running. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">HAHA..! Yes this is true regarding EA games. I think console is their strong suit. The SC4 graphics are GOOD but not so good that people with 1GB of ram should be lagging out. Anyhow, I will continue to enjoy SC3000 until patch #6 or #7 - when the gameplay issues are resolved!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
02-16-2003, 06:04 AM
#10
Race Director
"You're correct about LESS overlap with retarded intake opening, and the 'dynamic supercharging' effect that occurs when the intake valve is closed later. But since the intake valve is closing later there's 'flow reversal' taking place, where the boost is being pushed right back into the intake manifold instead of being contained and burned to produce greater torque."
Sorry was out drinking when you called. Yes there is some backflow of the combustion chamber into the intake-manifold with a late intake-valve closing, but only at low-rpm.
Let's say we take an extreme example of low-rpm operation by cranking the engine over by hand. The ingested volume and pressure inside the chamber is always at atmospheric. The optimum time to close the intake valve is BDC when the piston is at the very bottom. This gives you the largest ingested volume possible and when you compress it, gives the highest compression and biggest bang.
However at high-RPM, say 5000rpm+, as the piston descends on its intake stroke, the high-velocity piston literally 'sucks' air faster than can flow through the valve-opening. This creates a vacuum in the cylinders and pressure is lower than pressure in the intake-manifold. Thus the ingested air is of lower volume than maximum. If you close the intake-valve at BDC like before, you may actually be getting only 50-60% of all the air that can theroetically enter the chamber.
So what's the answer? You close the intake-valve later when this happens at higher-RPM. By giving the intake valve more open time past BDC, you give that incoming air-column more time to flow past the intake-valve and fully fill the chamber. This occurs even as the piston is on its way up because there's still a vacuum or less pressure in the cylinder than in the intake (due to intake-valve restriction).
Of course, this intake-closing timing after BDC must be optimized for the extra time-period it takes to fill and neutralize that vacuum. At low-RPM, it's way too much time and the piston pushes the mixture back out. At super-high RPM, it may still be insufficient and you'll have a stretched out air-column in the cylinders resulting in a slight vacuumn and insufficient cylinder filling.
The optimum solution then, is a variable cam-timing mechanism that changes the intake-valve closing continuously and smoothly with RPM. Such as Ferrari's 3D cam-lobe, Toyota's VVT-i or BMW's SuperVANOS. The BMW system is probably the best on the market right now. It literally allows you (the engineer/tuner) to design a new cam-profile in software and download it to the computer.
Sorry was out drinking when you called. Yes there is some backflow of the combustion chamber into the intake-manifold with a late intake-valve closing, but only at low-rpm.
Let's say we take an extreme example of low-rpm operation by cranking the engine over by hand. The ingested volume and pressure inside the chamber is always at atmospheric. The optimum time to close the intake valve is BDC when the piston is at the very bottom. This gives you the largest ingested volume possible and when you compress it, gives the highest compression and biggest bang.
However at high-RPM, say 5000rpm+, as the piston descends on its intake stroke, the high-velocity piston literally 'sucks' air faster than can flow through the valve-opening. This creates a vacuum in the cylinders and pressure is lower than pressure in the intake-manifold. Thus the ingested air is of lower volume than maximum. If you close the intake-valve at BDC like before, you may actually be getting only 50-60% of all the air that can theroetically enter the chamber.
So what's the answer? You close the intake-valve later when this happens at higher-RPM. By giving the intake valve more open time past BDC, you give that incoming air-column more time to flow past the intake-valve and fully fill the chamber. This occurs even as the piston is on its way up because there's still a vacuum or less pressure in the cylinder than in the intake (due to intake-valve restriction).
Of course, this intake-closing timing after BDC must be optimized for the extra time-period it takes to fill and neutralize that vacuum. At low-RPM, it's way too much time and the piston pushes the mixture back out. At super-high RPM, it may still be insufficient and you'll have a stretched out air-column in the cylinders resulting in a slight vacuumn and insufficient cylinder filling.
The optimum solution then, is a variable cam-timing mechanism that changes the intake-valve closing continuously and smoothly with RPM. Such as Ferrari's 3D cam-lobe, Toyota's VVT-i or BMW's SuperVANOS. The BMW system is probably the best on the market right now. It literally allows you (the engineer/tuner) to design a new cam-profile in software and download it to the computer.
02-16-2003, 02:09 PM
#11
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey everyone :-)
I'm posting this to the board in response to Private mails I'm getting. Its quicker to make one post.
We will get more from Trevor's car. As far as the motor,its solid, there are no worries with reliability, it runs like stock, idles smooth, and has quite a bit of miles on it at this point with the conversion in place. Right now, as Trevor says, we are tuning it to get peak HP. THere is definately another 10hp min. available just getting the fuel curve flattened out. As far as the cam timing and profiles, we are pretty much stuck with what we have unless we put the S2 cams in the head. We can adjust slightly the cam timing for BOTH cams at the same time, but timing each cam by itself is a little tricky. The teeth on the cams are not close enough to allow any kind of tweaking, by rotating them on the chain.
As far as the S2, it made 260lbs torque and 222hp at the tires. Its missing on the high side, we pulled it off the dyno and will address the ignition (wires,plugs etc etc). We also had a boost leak, and that will be taken care of also. The car will be dynoed again next week.
I'd like to pull the 18" wheels off the S2 and run 17's on the rear next time on the dyno. I doubt its that big of an issue though. Any comments on the wheels size anyone?
Take Care!
I'm posting this to the board in response to Private mails I'm getting. Its quicker to make one post.
We will get more from Trevor's car. As far as the motor,its solid, there are no worries with reliability, it runs like stock, idles smooth, and has quite a bit of miles on it at this point with the conversion in place. Right now, as Trevor says, we are tuning it to get peak HP. THere is definately another 10hp min. available just getting the fuel curve flattened out. As far as the cam timing and profiles, we are pretty much stuck with what we have unless we put the S2 cams in the head. We can adjust slightly the cam timing for BOTH cams at the same time, but timing each cam by itself is a little tricky. The teeth on the cams are not close enough to allow any kind of tweaking, by rotating them on the chain.
As far as the S2, it made 260lbs torque and 222hp at the tires. Its missing on the high side, we pulled it off the dyno and will address the ignition (wires,plugs etc etc). We also had a boost leak, and that will be taken care of also. The car will be dynoed again next week.
I'd like to pull the 18" wheels off the S2 and run 17's on the rear next time on the dyno. I doubt its that big of an issue though. Any comments on the wheels size anyone?
Take Care!
02-16-2003, 05:50 PM
#13
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 968 were intercooled, you would get denser air, and could run more boost safer i/e more HP etc... right? what kind of numbers are reasonably expected from intercooling. My 968 has plenty of room under the bonnet, I don't know why you guys would be having a problem... 
02-16-2003, 06:23 PM
#14
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roberto...he he he....I believe you have the special 968, the kind that is setup to run the intercooler from a 951 with minimal mods :-)
Your first question, it is actually quite the oposite...if we ran the intercooler, YES, the air would be denser, meaning more of it...that in turn would mean we would have to run more fuel...At this point we are at the limits of the AFPR, and are having custom chips burned to help flatten the fuel mixture(we are trying to avoid adding to many extra costs, so HP may suffer in order to make the car reliable)...I guess, we could have chips burned that would allow the use of the intercooler, but now we have left the entire reason for this project behind.
Remember, this conversion is a low boost program, using as many stock components as possible between the 951 annd the 968( we do have to fit and weld a lot of the exhaust system, depending how the customers wants) . It has proven to be solid (no, we do not have 20,000 miles on it yet, but it does have quite a few thousand), compression and leakdown are great, and the HP gains are respectable.
You (um...968 owners)keep the engine compartment looking stock, no cutting or welding..meaning there are very few items that would have to be custom built if say, something were to break. Even the turbo watercooling system use the stock 968 plumbing, no cutting needed...infact, nothing on the motor has been cut or altered accept the drilling and tapping of the balance shaft cover for the turbo feed. ALL hoses and wires remain in use, and un cut.
With out a doubt, this conversion brings the performance of the 968 back to where it should be with the newer cars being offered now days. The price is very fair, and the product workmanship is top notch.
Now, I would like to make something clear...This conversion is offered for what it is..a clean, cost affective, hp solution leaving a clean stock look. We do make bigger packages, lower compression, intercooled, fuel mapping...infact we have an S2 that is having it all done. The latter additions do cost more, and for some, may be out of their price range...thats why its nice to be able to offer conversions that start like Trevor's...that can be built on Like Ash's S2.
Ash will run 9:1 compression in the S2, big boost, fuel mapping, intercooled, We have added full coil over suspension, Brake upgrades, upgraded sway bars, Boost control, bigger injectors...the works...but as you can expect, the price is on the other side of the scale!
Roberto, call me if you get a chance...ok?
Take Care!!
Your first question, it is actually quite the oposite...if we ran the intercooler, YES, the air would be denser, meaning more of it...that in turn would mean we would have to run more fuel...At this point we are at the limits of the AFPR, and are having custom chips burned to help flatten the fuel mixture(we are trying to avoid adding to many extra costs, so HP may suffer in order to make the car reliable)...I guess, we could have chips burned that would allow the use of the intercooler, but now we have left the entire reason for this project behind.
Remember, this conversion is a low boost program, using as many stock components as possible between the 951 annd the 968( we do have to fit and weld a lot of the exhaust system, depending how the customers wants) . It has proven to be solid (no, we do not have 20,000 miles on it yet, but it does have quite a few thousand), compression and leakdown are great, and the HP gains are respectable.
You (um...968 owners)keep the engine compartment looking stock, no cutting or welding..meaning there are very few items that would have to be custom built if say, something were to break. Even the turbo watercooling system use the stock 968 plumbing, no cutting needed...infact, nothing on the motor has been cut or altered accept the drilling and tapping of the balance shaft cover for the turbo feed. ALL hoses and wires remain in use, and un cut.
With out a doubt, this conversion brings the performance of the 968 back to where it should be with the newer cars being offered now days. The price is very fair, and the product workmanship is top notch.
Now, I would like to make something clear...This conversion is offered for what it is..a clean, cost affective, hp solution leaving a clean stock look. We do make bigger packages, lower compression, intercooled, fuel mapping...infact we have an S2 that is having it all done. The latter additions do cost more, and for some, may be out of their price range...thats why its nice to be able to offer conversions that start like Trevor's...that can be built on Like Ash's S2.
Ash will run 9:1 compression in the S2, big boost, fuel mapping, intercooled, We have added full coil over suspension, Brake upgrades, upgraded sway bars, Boost control, bigger injectors...the works...but as you can expect, the price is on the other side of the scale!
Roberto, call me if you get a chance...ok?
Take Care!!
02-16-2003, 06:46 PM
#15
Race Car
Thread Starter
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by DanD:
<strong>Trevor,
Great news. You now have that rocking turbo you talked about last year!
More HP in the wings!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Yeah Dan, I'm so excited! It's music to my ears when I give the throttle a light touch and hear the turbo start spinning, then I roll on all the way and it's OUT! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> We've got to have another Pizza Run this spring so all the Cali guys can meet up and have a fun time talking Porsches. I also love taking pictures.
<strong>Trevor,
Great news. You now have that rocking turbo you talked about last year!
More HP in the wings!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Yeah Dan, I'm so excited! It's music to my ears when I give the throttle a light touch and hear the turbo start spinning, then I roll on all the way and it's OUT! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> We've got to have another Pizza Run this spring so all the Cali guys can meet up and have a fun time talking Porsches.
I also love taking pictures.