rberry951

Over the past few months several people have asked for a chip for a completely stock 951. These people may be in racing classes that don't allow other modifications, or simply want more performance without making any other modifications.

I decided to make a chip especially for you. The 951MAX DME I, or 951MAX Booster. This chip will provide better overall performance without any other upgrades. It will retain all factory safety features including overboost protection. Instead of the usual 7K rev limit, this chip will have the rev limit raised 300 rpm to 6780. Overboost protection will also be raised only slightly to allow higher performance.

This chip will be perfectly safe on any un-modified 951 running 89 Octane fuel or higher. Retail price for the Booster will be 199.00 USD, with a 30 Day Rennlist promotion at $149.00 USD.

Most of you top gear boost heads won't be interested in this, but people keep asking me about it, so I will provide it for them. If you want the best performance you can get out of a totally stock 951 without changing anything else, this is your chip. This is the DME chip only, you retain the stock KLR.

UPDATE:

Local fellow Van Svenson took the Booster chip to the dyno today. The dyno fellow had him use the Romar method, run through the gears shifting low and running to 6500. He's going to send me the charts tomorrow but they only show 5100-6500RPM, not much use other than it shows peak HP/TQ of the stock chip vs. the Booster chip. Completely stock Turbo S, no boost controller, nothing to change but the DME chip. Raw numbers are:

Stock chip= max at about 5,100 - RPM 252 HP/258 ft-lbs
Max chip= max at about 5,100 - RPM 263 HP/270ft-lbs

I'll post the chart tomorrow, but again, it only shows peaks, no real useful info. Oh well...


Regards,
Russell

danny951

Nice idea for the right 951 owners. But wouldn't this be considered a modification in stock classes?

rberry951

Depends on the class, some tell me they can chip and take a 100Lbs weight penalty. Others have said they can change the DME but not the KLR. I don't know all the different class/club rules, I'm just going by what people have told me they were looking for. But I've also had a surprising number of requests from people who simply love their bone stock 951 and would like better response and power without changing anything else. Whether in the spirit of preserving the car, or their own performance preferences and mechanical know how. Some guys actually don't like working on their cars

But don't let the price or naming fool you, this isn't a tame chip, but one that will work on any stock configuration. I'm charging less for it because it's something I only have to make once. Almost every chip for every modified 951 is custom or semi-custom. So if I have less time into each one it is feasible to charge less for it.

And yes this is a select few owners who will want this, but they have asked, so here it is.

Regards,
Russell

333pg333

Russell just to clarify, you said that the rev limit would be raised from 7k to 6780, can you amend that? Was it meant to be the reverse of that? Wouldn't raising the rev limit on an otherwise stock motor to 7k be a bit risky?
Patrick

rberry951

Yeah, that does look strange when you read it. Sorry about that. I meant the usual 7K limit on the 951MAX DME III chips, this chip is raised from the stock rev limit to 6780. But honestly it is no more risky hitting 7K at 9-11Lbs of boost on a stock engine than hitting it at 20psi on a built motor. But on any of my chips you can request any rev limit you want.

Regards,
Russell

VA951

Russell, what kind of HP increase are you getting with this chip? I have APE stage II now in my 86, everything else stock.

333pg333

Ok I understand thanks. So do we all kind of agree that 7k rpm is about the safe limit before we start running into valvetrain issues? Solid lifters and race springs after that?

UAZJ1

I don't see any mention of a chip in the PCA autocross rules:

http://zone8.pca.org/rules/2007/Z8Rules2007.pdf

They make allowances for modified wastegates, manual boost controllers, and fuel pressure regulators.

It looks like a chip is fair game for stock class?

Also, raising the rev limiter past stock may be an issue for this classification.

rberry951

I've never measured this chip against anything, so I can't really answer that. But the Autothority chips are meant to be used with the banjo bolt which increases boost. More boost, more fuel. So the Authority chips would probably run really rich without the banjo bolt or a boost controller. The reason there is the chip selector on the normal 951MAX chips is so I can arrange fuel/timing to optimize a particular setup. The booster chip will be an off-the-shelf chip that will work on any un-modified 951. That is the reason it is cheaper.

UAZ1 was the last person to ask about this last night, which gave me the idea since others had asked. Again, most all turbo aftermarket chips are meant to be used with added boost, this one is not. It will give you the best power you can get at stock boost on an otherwise totally stock car.

Regards,
Russell

VA951

Thanks Russell, that makes sense. Do you have any plans on comparing your chips to stock chips back-to-back on a dyno?
Bob

RK951

Russell,
Thank you for continuing to offer new products for the 951 community. Without giving away any secrets, what boost level does this new chip(s) programmed for? Would it be possible to make one that raised the factory boost level to 13,14, or 15psi? I have a friend who may be interested in such a product given that it doesn't require making any other changes and still retains factory protection with good AFR.

rberry951

At some point I would like to do a dyno with it just to see what the performance gains are. And I do not quote 'estimated' performance gains on anything because I simply do not want to mislead anyone as every car is different and a car in a particular state of overall health will do better/worse than another. So unless I have a chart someone has given me with numbers on it, I don't spew numbers. This chip will cause the car to run a slightly higher than stock boost level in spots, which is why I have to modify the overboost protection a bit to account for this. I don't want to send people into limp home mode every time they floor it on a long track. The overall performance is what I shoot for, not the peak HP numbers anyway. People who have my chips ALWAYS tell me their car performs better all around than it ever has. Some aftermarket chips just try to achieve the highest peak HP, I don't. I achieve highest overall performance.

Regards,
Russell

rberry951

Hey Rick,

Looks like I answered part of your question above as far as the boost level goes. This chip will raise boost only slightly as a side effect, but no other modifications will be necessary to the car, it should be bone stock otherwise. Raising boost by external means with this chip WILL be dangerous.

Regards,
Russell

RK951

I guess I didn't phase my question properly. Is it possible for you to program your chip to raise the boost to say 14psi (still controlled by the CV) rather than the factory level of ~12, with any other changes to maintain the appropriate AFR? This is essentially what another vendor advertises in their DME/KLR chipset so I'm guessing you probably know what is required.
Regards

rberry951

Hey Rick,

I see what you are asking now, and yes this can be done by re-writing the DME/KLR code. I know Transaxle has already done this, and I suppose he did it for the vendor you speak of, not sure. But he spoke to me about it some months ago and I'm confident that if he has implemented this it works as advertised. He knows his stuff. He designed the Scivision MAF.

With current development and new products I'm having a hard time finding a spare moment to do anything. So my time must be devoted to development which fulfills an otherwise unfilled need in the market. I'm not looking to re-invent any wheels or compete against a product that is already well written and reasonably priced. So I would say no, I probably won't be getting into re-writing the KLR code to implement this.

I hope this addresses your question better.

Regards,
Russell