This thread is a technical discussion on electronic systems and the results achieved its also an debate that causes abuse from some....


It's not a discussion on who like fords, chevies or any other car / manufacturer etc.


Some have claimed very aggressively the stock system is so dire!


So why does my stock system produce better results ? is my question to the sceptics..nothing more nothing less.


If this is answered with the AFM is rubbish, or a different system is superior..


This is not good enough, I want answers...


As do many other people that may think product "x" is good because someone said so!


R

 

Is it new ? I thought it's been around for years now..?


Open your eyes..........I've posted a comparison on here !


A competition winning car / 2.7 engine which short of my super AFM system.....


Take a look at the 2 and compare the torque and bhp comparison


187bhp v 205BHP all on stock Bosch AFM / dizzy / ECU / injectors etc..


R

 

No one on this or your previous threads has said the stock system is rubbish! Porsche and you have done great things with it! People have said it has some limitations and there is newer, improved technology that doesn't have those limitations. We love your build! No one cares that you don't want to use the newer technology. I respect choosing to stick with the stock system. The problem has come because you repeatedly insist that there isn't anything better than the stock AFM system and insult those that disagree! People would love for this to be just a technical discussion, but you have repeatedly ignored proof, valid arguments and anything that doesn't fit your reality. So now we have this thread, that is like a huge racing pileup. No one likes it, but we can't look away either.

 

It isn't new, it has also been dyno proven. (What we haven't seen is a back-to-back comparison with TUNED Motronic vs standalone. Note that we can still compare Motronic aftermarket "chips" vs standalone which is pretty similar and have seen that the latter is better.
I have also provided a possible explanation for the difference in power figures you are quoting.
However, it does not support your opinion so you ignore it and keep repeating your version. Well, at least I tried to keep this discussion technical...

 

Actually, there's one more thing that I find very interesting in your build. That is that you said you use the stock injectors? Is this really the case?

I'm asking because when I built mine nearly the first thing people told me were that I'll need bigger injectors. So I switched to turbo ones.

Now, the augtronic software does give me injector duty but I haven't revved my car hard to the red line, so I don't have a max value yet. Do you happen to have some numbers in this respect?

 

Excellent reply, I agree totally it's for sure a touchy conversation & Thread...and this is what's commonly called a debate, which I believe is none more intense when it's boys discussing cars....


I need to answer and clear up you statements though as it's important that my point of view is understood as many times it's distorted...




"No one on this or your previous threads has said the stock system is rubbish! "
One or two, maybe more (Without trudging through threads) have for sure said the stock system is a very restrictive piece of (virtually) Trash






"Porsche and you have done great things with it!"
I have done nothing other than be guided by my research and engine builders and tuners, I've made my choice to trust who I felt was the best option 9which is against many others views) and they have produced the goods as they said they would. (Hence where I wasn't 100% convinced they were right, I took this risk and now their work has been proven I am of course totally convinced)




"People have said it has some limitations and there is newer, improved technology that doesn't have those limitations."
Yes, this statement is the best thing written which is key to one of my points having not turned to the "dark side" and gone with what "People have said" I've gone with the people that do this and have done this for a living and trusted their judgement and not what I've read on some forum...


The problem has come because you repeatedly insist that there isn't anything better than the stock AFM system and insult those that disagree!
I have relayed the information from the experts who have told the stock system for ROAD use is the best, and that I can spend money and that they will fit for me anything I want them to....But from their 25 years Tuning Road and Race (Winning) Porsche Engines it will not give me any major benefits...


If I was Racing this car / Engine, Yes they would.


I understand this more than most as I used to sell Race and Road aftermarket Tuning equipment for 6 years, where every manufacturer offered training sessions to all the salesman and guess what ? every one of them told us their products are the best and produce fantastic results......When I was younger I bought this, as I matured I realised many do not do as they suggest, they are all highly marketed worldwide to sell products...


"People would love for this to be just a technical discussion, but you have repeatedly ignored proof, valid arguments and anything that doesn't fit your reality"


It should be a technical discussion, backed up with facts and proof...
Yes I agree.


I've attached several examples of my stock system against a modern system available in the UK, this is a far more accurate picture than several saying I've fitted this to my car and it was much better than the stock system !


A back to back graph of the stock system and a MAP system may show improvements...great.


But so far nobody is answering a question which I've asked many times..?


Has or does anyone else (In the world) Live Map the Stock 2.5 ECU ?


Only a comparison of a this against a AFM deleted system would be the better 2 to compare like for like.


I've illustrated and attached (On this thread) a stock system against a modern system, same size engine but it comes up short ?


What do you (And others) think about why this is?


I would suspect the AFM haters would suggest my 205bhp would be more with the AFM deleted? My engine tuner agrees a few more but the ROAD driveability is much better with the stock AFM.


R

 

Yes Injectors is another component I have also read so much about that
"Needs changing" for better benefits...


I had my 29 year old Injectors ultrasonically cleaned and tested and they are quite clearly up to the job producing over 200bhp !


Numbers for RPM ?


My rev limiter is 6450rpm...


Peak power is approx. 5799rpm and torque at 4500rpm ish....(without checking) but the figure of 190ft lbs at 2800rpm is the clincher for me...


I've seen and read the Augment cam or set up is set up to rev higher and harder at the high rpm.


I did not and do not want to Rev no more than 6000rpm, I wanted everything for lower rpm Torque...


On the road this has proven itself to be the best route for me.


This amount of torque under 3000rpm in a car weighing 1010kg / 2222Lbs is fantastic to experience..


R

 

The stock UK 2.7 944 didn't have a cat, or did my 1987 924s, or does the 2.7 race car engine AA did..


Yes you were the closest.


"Only way to know would be you going to Augment for them to do a back-to-back dyno with their stuff and the stock thing."


Isn't this the comparison between the Augment components 2.7 race car and mine on stock components?


R

 

I disagree with the first one (see below in German, 3rd column), am not sure about the 2. and 3. ones. Anyhow, I only offered a plausible explanation not stated the "ultimate truth".
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsch...chnische_Daten

No, because of different internals, etc. Like the comment from LR you posted suggested that the 2.5l head is better than the 2.7l.

I reckon the best we have is from Rogue where only the AFM was replaced to a MAF. 8% gains everywhere for both power & torque.
http://roguetuning.com/yahoo_site_ad...5806_large.png

 

 

You're using 924S injectors, correct?

 

Yes, this is very common. Anyone with an EPROM emulator (like Ostrich), a laptop & free software can do it. The last time we did it on my car was when we were making an emissions tune.

What I doubt is as common, for a street car, is spending an hour on each 1k of the rpm range, like your guy did. From your description, it is clear that was a big part of your impressive numbers.

 

Correct...

 

Ok thanks, although this also sounds similar to the probably 90% of the thousands of mapping companies in the UK, who are in fact downloading a generic file / chip and not Mapping in real time and looking and understanding the numbers etc..



The guy that Mapped my car has almost a year of work ! He can be very difficult to get hold of sometimes, as his workload is relentless..


He is very well known in the UK for literally knowing his stuff which many many others don't and also as you've mentioned will spend a high percentage of time getting the best tune possible..


The Emulator you refer to , does this fit on the car instead of the ECU? and it collect's and memorises new info which can then be downloaded to make a new Chip which can be fitted to the stock ECU Board?


R

 

OK, I had a 1994 968 3.0 I think that must of had a Cat, but the 1987 924S did't and I think the 944 2.7 was only produced for a year or so 1988-89 ? maybe that did have a cat, not sure...


The 2.5 / 2.7 Head scenario has only just appeared or been stated as such...


I was always having an Engine which was a mixmatch of so many others that there was of course no real guarantee that it was going to be that god as it has turned out, which has of course raised a few eyebrows, and even in my thoughts, not to mention others, and the sceptics that were slagging it etc.... the fact that all stock injectors, Coil, AFM, ECU etc...is what it's using MUST send be an eye opener for many...


I was Piggy in the middle for quite some time, never 100% sure the all the stock would be up to the job, as it's very easy to get swayed away with all the hype that the AFM is restrictive and so old and poor etc...


Even 911 & Porsche world have banged on about this in several articles and the current Editor has had a 944 at Augment's place for nearly 2 years...having all their electronic and mechanical goodies fitted..


Well it's now all done, but the figure quoted in the magazine was 175bhp?which sounds a bit made up and random in my opinion...In other words it could be less !


As I've mentioned this all singing Championship winning 924 2.7 is also short of the mark in comparison to mine...


- 3.0 Short stroke Engine (2707cc)
- Stage II Inlet only porting (2.5 944 8v Cylinder Head)
- Extrude Hone Inlet Manifold
- Smaller bore 1.88" ID Exhaust
- Webcam Camshaft 274


The 944 turbo Knife edged Crank, 968 rods, New Pistons, Spec Aluminium Flywheel have not added any power ? if I'm correct


The standard Bosch (1985) ECU, the Fuel Injectors, Fuel Rail, Pump, Pressure and dampener, Distributor, Rotor Arm, Coil, AFM and all sensors + the Magnecour Ignition leads or Nippon Denso Iridium Spark plugs have NOT made any extra power either....

But 42bhp more has been found from somewhere in comparison to the stock 944 2.7 (Uk Version)


The Lighter crank / fly will get me from A to B quicker than a stock one though, as will the 500Lbs+ Loss also propel the vehicle quicker along the tarmac than, the combination of all 3 (Light Engine Internals / Light Car / More Power) unless your just out for a dramatic ride is a good example you don't need to go for a Turbo engine car...


Many of the greats are Normally aspirated; McLaren F1 + Red Bulls Adrian Newey's first Road car design..a V12 ...


R