Brett

[quote] Save all of your things you take off the car if you ever want to put it back original. Good luck and what was the color combo on that garage queen? <hr></blockquote>

The garage queen is silver with black leather and light tan carpet.

Russ Murphy

[quote]MAF because its the tried-and-true technology that doesn't hiccup. Sure, it costs a little more than a MAP system, <hr></blockquote>

I guess the hundreds of posts about MAF's and constant twiddling of fuel controller ***** and still failing to get the air/fuel dialed in back up your statement.

rcldesign

Its not my fault people have difficulty tuning the systems... Once its tuned, that's it... "set it and forget it".

Dan87951

Don't garage queen the car!! Enjoy it asyou have the right too! I purchased my 951 with 42k on the clock last year. It now has 56k, and look at all the mods she has (look at my sign.) Talk to Tim over at SFR he will hook you up like you need to be. I would do Mass Air Flow, Tial 35mm wastegate, Manual Boost controller, and 3" Testpipe. You could get all this for about 2k and it will make your 951 feel way different power wise!

Brett

Yes I really dont have the luxury of garage queening the car. I have looked at SFR and thier stuff looks great, but why not go with GURU MAP and the rest SFR???

Luis de Prat

Brett,

How familiar are you with 951s? I think you're doing the right thing by asking for info on modifications, but since you want the car for street use, why not enjoy it in stock form for a while? 220HP is still a good bit of power to throw around.

With all due respect, modifications are a lot like plastic surgery. Once you start, it becomes a never ending process. Porsche put a lot of R&D into the 951 and it's still one heck of a car 15 years later. Personally, at such low miles I'd leave the car like it is, but that's just me.

Brett

Well I agree the 951 has quite a bit of power and I think I will enjoy it like that for a while. But on the other hand I have had the 944 NA for 3 years and I am tired of getting smoked by turbo eclipse, supras, cobra mustangs and the like.

<img src="graemlins/cussing.gif" border="0" alt="[grrrrrrr]" />

And by next summer I want to get revenge on this guy that lives up the street with a Ferrari 355. We sort of raced and the 44 is no race car, but he still to pleasure in handing me my a$$

Steve Lavigne

[quote]Originally posted by Brett:
<strong>And by next summer I want to get revenge on this guy that lives up the street with a Ferrari 355. We sort of raced and the 44 is no race car, but he still to pleasure in handing me my a$$ </strong><hr></blockquote>

This guy can fix your problems for you:

<a href="http://www.jmengines.com" target="_blank">http://www.jmengines.com</a>

Brett

[quote] This guy can fix your problems for you:

<a href="http://www.jmengines.com" target="_blank">http://www.jmengines.com</a>
<hr></blockquote>

Good Lord, do you think I should throw in a race motor. I bet I could blow the Ferrari's door right of the hinges then!!!!

nine-44

I was looking close at one of the JME engines, I think it's got direct port nitrous. <img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />

Olli Snellman

Contact first Danno/Guru Racing. Also Tim's Speed Force Racing has nice products to go with.

TurboTim

Since I have dynoed many, many, many, many, many, many, cars, I can say with great certainty that eclipsing the 350 rear wheel horsepower does not come easy. Usually it take more then 20 psi to do it too.It usually involves a great deal of expense on top of that. A turbocharger system is a complex system and in order to make the most out of any turbocharger, you need to address all aspects of it. Everything from the intake to the wastegate and exhaust must be addressed along with the having proper fuel and timing.If you modify only part of this system and expect it to reach its full potential then you are sadly mistaken.

Another thing to think about is volumeric efficiency of each and every motor.Each motor is different and this is one part of the tuning eqaution which can not be addressed with a simple plug and play kit without some sort of tuning by the end user. Sorry! But this is the way it is and until it is proven to be otherwise, I will stick to my guns. You just cant put the same parts, program, etc..... on a fresh engine with 2% leakdown and 145 psi of compression across all four cylinders and expect everything to be the exact same as a high mileage engine with a leak down of 5% and compression of 125 across the board. These cars will not end up with the same VE nor will they be able to make the same power based on an identical program. Now everything I am saying is based on years of dyno tuning so you can take that for what its worth. Take care.

Snel

I must say that what TurboTim has said here makes more sense to me than anything I have heard from anyone previously. If I understand TurboTim fully then he is saying that for a true horsepower gain (over 350 bhp) consideration of every design aspect must be balanced to achieve the harmony a turbo charge can power.
So, what small bolt-ons do not compromise the integrity of a solid stock turbo motor?
Are these small bolt-ons worth it? This has been such a difficult question due to the differing feedback that I read on this forum. Please help me out with this TurboTim or Danno?

guardsred951S

I don't think there's any question that a number like 350 rwhp will be easy to achieve. The simple answer is that it won't but I think with the right technology, it can be had without hours and hours of dyno time. Sure you can't expect it with 200K mile engine, but that's really another story. I think the idea, and this should be made clear, BIG HP comes at a price and there's no real easy way to get there. The difference between now and the good 'ol days when these machines were still rolling off the assembly line is that the technology is available to them smart enough to be dealt with on a daily basis: Get up in morning, turn key, drive to work, repeat as necessary.....I may be off in my own little dream world, but I'm really hoping that this is what the various tuners are striving for....

I don't have much dyno experience but I do have R/D experience and I know with enough of it you can make a product that even the most non-technical audience can work with.

<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" /> <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />

Danno

"Hey everyone I just bought an 87 951 today that is totally stock. It has 45K on the clock and in perfect condition"

Hi Brett, welcome to the club <img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" /> ! You'll find lots of support here.

Everyone's been on target, so I've just been lurking on this thread, some quick clarifications, ....

"MAF because its the tried-and-true technology that doesn't hiccup. Sure, it costs a little more than a MAP system, "

"guess the hundreds of posts about MAF's and constant twiddling of fuel controller ***** and still failing to get the air/fuel dialed in back up your statement. "

"I haven't run a MAP personally in my car, but I have been around during the MAP R&D phases... "

Funny..., I don't recall rcldesign hanging out at our shop or visiting us at the dyno? Check out the <a href="http://www.gururacing.net/History.html" target="_blank">R&D history</a> behind the MAP kit and I still don't see him around anywhere. Thanks to all you guys who participated and helped us get the product out quickly. Going from importation and sales numbers, we are buying up around %95 of all the AFM-Link MAP units sent over by Link-NZ. There is no other outfit that has as much experience with MAP or have installed as many kits as we have:
<a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=010896" target="_blank">http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=010896</a>
<a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=002377" target="_blank">http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=002377</a>
<a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/cgi-bin/rennforums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=000580" target="_blank">http://forums.rennlist.com/cgi-bin/rennforums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=19&t=0005 80</a>

"MAF because its the tried-and-true technology that doesn't hiccup."

This point keeps on getting brought up like it's an inherent technological barrier set in stone or something. And I've always said that the hiccups and driveability issues are nothing more than implementation details (programming and installation hardware).

One must first distinguish how our MAP kit, an all inclusive digital computer with built-in MAP-sensor (like the KLR) is different than ALL other MAP-sensors to date. I'm going to give away a little freebie here so our competitors can get up to speed. Up to now, the EFI systems have used a separate standalone MAP-sensor that is typically mounted near the intake-manifold. This proximimty causes the sensor to pick up fluctuating pulses from cam-overlap and valve-closings. This is partly what contributes to the rough idle and driveability problems others have experienced with MAP-sensors.

The other implementation tactic is selecting the proper diameter and length line to carry the manifold signal itself! Anyone ever notice how the line to the KLR is different than any other vacuum line in the engine compartment? Working with hydraulics-control specialists, we have an optimum diameter and length line to average out fluctuations in the signal for clean running.

Just check out the <a href="http://www.gururacing.net/Testimonials.html" target="_blank">Testimonials page</a> you'll see all the references to the MAP kit CURING people's driveability and low-end problems. Also see <a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=18&t=003134" target="_blank">Steve's Coopers recent post</a> on our updated programming.

So again, the stumbling and hiccups that's always brought up about MAP is not a design issue with the sensor technology itself, but rather lies in the implementation, installation and programming. Just because others can't dial it out, doesn't mean that we haven't already found the solution (we have ).

" I can say with great certainty that eclipsing the 350 rear wheel horsepower does not come easy. Usually it take more then 20 psi to do it too."

No one said it was, but it's not black-magic either. Just takes meticulous attention to details in chosing the correct turbo, programming and injectors. That's why we don't want everyone to have to go through this process themselves.

Consultations with tuners who've actually built 600rwhp+ cars, and from our own experience, there is also no way you're making 350rwhp reliably with 55-lb/hr injectors (80% duty-cycle limit is 330rwhp). No one was using 65-lb/hr injectors until we came around because there's no easy way to control them with APE chips and 4-**** rheostat MAF adjusters.

With our non-massasging, non-signal-skewing configuration with injector-selecting chips and 3D air-flow mapping with the MAP kit, we'll be getting our target at 18-19psi of boost. <img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />

"You just cant put the same parts, program, etc..... on a fresh engine with 2% leakdown and 145 psi of compression across all four cylinders and expect everything to be the exact same as a high mileage engine with a leak down of 5% and compression of 125 across the board. These cars will not end up with the same VE nor will they be able to make the same power based on an identical program."

First the compression-results have to be examined. Do a search for "compression" and you'll find that most 951s in general regardless of age have been posting compression figures in the 138-145psi range. These cars are durable!

And yes, you can't put identical MAF parts on different cars with different wear-rates and VE-volumetric efficiencys (MAF can't sense blow-by). However a MAP sensor CAN detect changes in VE. In fact, one very-well trained lister turned away from our MAP kit for the very reason that MAFs weren't affected by VE changes (too bad ).

Here's what happens in actual practice. Let's say you have two engines:

#1: 145psi compression, 2% leakdown
#2: 125psi compression, 5% leakdown

Under identical flow-rates, say 400-CFM, a MAF-sensor on both these cars will give out the exact same reading. When that flow goes through the turbo, it gets compressed and stuffed into the engine. On engine#1 it will generate 20psi of boost and create a certain amount of power. With engine#2, only 15psi will be created due to blow-by, ring/valve-seal, etc. Since the air-flow has already been measured beforehand, the identical fuel will be metered in both cases and you'll end up with different air-fuel ratios and power outputs from these two engines with the same inputs (too rich on #2). That's where the issues with differing VE on engines come from.

Ok, fast-forward a couple decades and we're looking at what actually makes it into the engine. A MAP-sensor measures pressure in the intakes, right before the intake-valves. Using sophisticated digital electronics, it computes an air-flow signal for the stock computer. The good-sealing engine#1 gets 20psi of boost and that is sensed and measured correctly by the MAP sensor compared to the bad engine#2 that only generates 15psi. The sensor looks up a different <a href="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/AFMLINKZoneWorksheet-blank2.gif" target="_blank">air-flow zone</a> and sends the proper signals to the GURU chips. Since different areas of the map are referenced, the correct fuel is metered for both engine#1 and engine#2.

Sure, the tight engine will get 350rwhp, but the worn engine will also get as much as it can with the correct air-fuel ratio, perhaps 300rwhp.

You'll notice a trend in my focus throughout. I'm always looking forwards to the possibilities of what CAN happen, not what CAN'T. Every significant breakthrough for people or the World & society have always started with, "it can be done", rather "it can't". You usually find what you look for and if you look for the negative stuff, that's what you'll get.

"I can get a promotion if I go back to school and get certified in..." versus
"There's no way I'm getting a raise, why bother"

Remember when everyone was saying you can't sail beyond line-of-sight from land, or you can't break the sound-barrier, or the 4-minute mile? Rather than doing things the old ways and getting the same old results, we're looking at new ways of doing things to get new results (not forcing old technology to do new tricks). <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />