V2Rocket

16psi below 3000rpm?

dude. monster.

fast951

OT - Not that any of this matters now.
The MAF kit comes with a J-pipe, it appears that you did not install it in the standard location. Turbulence creates havoc with all MAF sensors, a 90deg bend after the turbo does not help.
The same chip/board works on both early (24-pin) and late (28-pin) DMEs, so it cannot be the cause why you changed the wiring loom.

marcoturbo

DivineE, do you have pics of your engine bay ?

Duke

The title says "dyno chart info thread" but I cannot find your dyno chart?
There is another thread "Rennlist Top HP" or something where most dynocharts are posted.

DivineE

Yes I realise the irony. Wondered how long it'd take before someone commented but I'm afraid I sold the charts for that one with the car, maybe someone else has one for my old car? Jon M or Paul might have access.

The idea for the thread was, I'm looking at getting into a 944T again and thinking with a fresh and open mind. I'm wondering how best to go about it.. Buying my old car back certainly 'might' be an option but I'd like to have a think first and see what else has been done/what results other ideas produced. Even if I do buy back the 3.2 I want to know how best to start unlocking its potential.

I looked at that other thread but after 20pages I saw about 3 charts of interest and a LOT of arguments. I was rather hoping I might get a better collection here

DivineE

Very interesting. Both parts. No the maf wasn't installed in standard location it was only about 4" from the turbo to start with (while Jon was setting up) and wouldn't fuel right at all! Later moved back the the normal (far side of the header tank) it worked perfectly. A chap from Bosch said that the turbo should never have clear line of sight to the MAF i.e. you need a 90* or the MAF will under-read as the air creates a vortex.

My assumption from that was there'd be a low pressure area in the centre of the pipe where the maf takes its readings - so readings would be too low?

I'm only going on other peoples knowledge though, what do you think it was if not the bend?

95ONE

after the intercooler? is that what you were trying to say by, "header tank"!!? that would certainly change things, and I'm not posting dyno here, since its already been done on the other thread. I agree with the request for more specifics, but I don't think a new thread is necessary, just update the old one

Thom

It seems to me 9XX-built engines rank among the best ones.
If I were you I would buy the car back and upgrade the bits (suspension, brakes) that I remember made you sell it.

Duke

The 9xx-engines seems nothing less of top notch, but have any of those engines made any big numbers?
IMHO honking around at 12 psi below 6000 rpm isn't enough to prove the design. Note that I am absolutely not saying anything bad about the engines or implying that it isn't working, but I would like to see at least a few track driven 500 bhp 3.2l engines to prove their reliability.

Thom

I'm not related to 9XX and I don't know how reliable their engines will prove in the long run, but I don't know either about even one track-driven 3.2 500bhp engine that has already proven its reliability.

DivineE

Yes it is my greatest regret that after all that work I got into difficulties and never got the chance to drive the car in anger or video it.

Also no it was always run pre turbo, I meant the header tank. The MAF ended up in the usual possition for a cone filter once on the road.

I wasn't meaning to debate the quality of the 9xx engines. They are superbly put together with the finest quality parts you can buy. I'm just considering the other options while I can, is it really necessary to go to 3.2 or can I get enough from the right mods on a 2.5? All sorts of ideas have crossed my mind.

I was also very interested in a chap in the uk who (purely as an experiment) built a 3.0 944T using nothing but standard parts from the 968/944 range. He just re-dished the 968 pistons to lower compression and put it all together in standard 944 T form with original exhaust, wastegate (shimmed), intake, Air flow meter, K26 turbo and even standard boost of 0.8bar.

It was really interesting to see the 'pure' gain from capacity without making any other changes. The car which has only been tested on a road dyno to date is producing approximately 300hp and 350ft/lb torque.. Makes me wonder which mods really make what difference. With enough dyno sheets I reckon you could start to build up a picture but there's no where near enough yet to work with.

George D

Here are a few from a 3.0 using a a GTK 650 turbo. This turbo has been sold and I'm installing a Precision 6262 turbo for better spool-up, lower flatter tq numbers, and hopeful similar top end numbers. This motor is a 3.0. The 18psi and 20psi dyno's are using pump 91 fuel. The other dyno's were a mixture of 112 race gas and 91 fuel.

Thom

If you had the chance to drive the 3.2 in anger it is more than likely that you would have found a solution to avoid selling it.
I run a 3.0 since August and now that it's fully run-in and that the electronic boost controller is set right I would rather switch to a pedal car than having to switch back to a 2.5

Diver944

Ben, as you know I've driven that car and I think it's a fantastic budget baseline to start from. The headline figures don't sound too much but it makes those figures from such low revs that the car is much faster than it ought to be.

He also wants to sell it so give him a call

DivineE

wait... "sps turbo" ..."9xx engines are good" ..."I'd rather die than have a 2.5 again". a realisation is occuring. You wouldn't by any chance be the owner of the last 3.2 would you? I thought it was a chap from Germany getting it? do tell me more! What spec did you end up with? I heard you were going BIG with the intake options. What kind of power do you think you're running? How is the clutch doing? Jon warned me much more than 18psi and I'd be into 'the danger zone' with the cup clutch because of the torque. How does your torque curve look?

..I did get a couple of low boost 15-18psi drives in before it had to go and it was BRUTAL in 4th gear ..truly, lung crushingly, neck snappingly BRUTAL including 1 very close call with the law testing the 4th and 5th gear pull on the motorway and a very fast drive down the 'mad mile' near where I live that cooked the standard brakes in under 1 mile of twisting B-road (you just don't realise the work your putting it under with the speeds your scrubbing off! A standard car would never get to those numbers between bends).

Unfortunately much sillyness elsewhere in my financial life left me with NOO choice in the matter! It was the bank takes the car or I sell it and bay the bank.