MOST HP AT 15psi
10-30-2002, 03:36 PM
#17
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FILLMORE ca.
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fc-racer your spot on the trick is to maintain boost in the upper rpms this we will do with and electronic boost controller and some know how.The key to making the 300 rwhp mark is spot on timing and fuel maping and being able to hold the boost to redline.All this said we will go back to the dyno soon to try and hit the 300 mark.
10-30-2002, 11:54 PM
#18
Drifting
[quote]Originally posted by Turbo Fanatic:
<strong>Farzaan, which version of SteveR's chips were you running? The ones for 2.5 bar fuel pressure regulator or a 3.0 bar regulator set?
Were you running with the cat converter in place or with test pipe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We were running the 3.0bar chips, but for that run, since it was low boost, we just left it without the 3.0bar regulator. When we went to higher boost, we put the regulator in.
The cat was in place. The new owner of my 951 is madly in love with the car and will never sell it. I will have to eventually find another one or finally build the 968 Turbo I've always wanted. The 911 looks good and has tons of torque, but it lacks that balanced feel of the 944 series.
fc-racer
<strong>Farzaan, which version of SteveR's chips were you running? The ones for 2.5 bar fuel pressure regulator or a 3.0 bar regulator set?
Were you running with the cat converter in place or with test pipe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We were running the 3.0bar chips, but for that run, since it was low boost, we just left it without the 3.0bar regulator. When we went to higher boost, we put the regulator in.
The cat was in place. The new owner of my 951 is madly in love with the car and will never sell it. I will have to eventually find another one or finally build the 968 Turbo I've always wanted. The 911 looks good and has tons of torque, but it lacks that balanced feel of the 944 series.
fc-racer
10-30-2002, 11:56 PM
#19
Drifting
[quote]Originally posted by christian:
<strong>Farzaan:
Where do you go for dynoing your cars?
Thanks,
Christian</strong><hr></blockquote>
I went to Minnam Racing at the time, but they closed down. Their dyno is now at Teknik Motorwerks, but I've heard it needs maintenance badly. So now, I use Reznek's dyno in Port Coquitlam that I arrange through <a href="http://www.lr-racing.com" target="_blank">www.lr-racing.com</a> He does all the Dynojet updates, etc. and Lowell has a Motec wideband O2 sensor and reciever so you also get proper A/F on the dyno plots. My 911 runs 11.9:1 as an fyi.
fc-racer
<strong>Farzaan:
Where do you go for dynoing your cars?
Thanks,
Christian</strong><hr></blockquote>
I went to Minnam Racing at the time, but they closed down. Their dyno is now at Teknik Motorwerks, but I've heard it needs maintenance badly. So now, I use Reznek's dyno in Port Coquitlam that I arrange through <a href="http://www.lr-racing.com" target="_blank">www.lr-racing.com</a> He does all the Dynojet updates, etc. and Lowell has a Motec wideband O2 sensor and reciever so you also get proper A/F on the dyno plots. My 911 runs 11.9:1 as an fyi.
fc-racer
10-30-2002, 11:59 PM
#20
Special Tool: I'm still using the Vane Meter. I'm not convinced that it's as much of a restriction as it's made out to be. I've spoken with a well respected Porsche shop that races and works on 944 turbos and they told me that they have pushed 400+ hp with the stock meter in place. They told me that the mass air flow kits are not all they are made out to be and definately not worth the money. I believe the biggest gains from Danno's MAP kit come from the tunability and resolution of the sensor itself and not the "unrestricted" intake.
Toddk911: That dyno was with APE stage 2 chips. I've since installed Danno's chips and bigger injectors. My clutch packed it in before I could make it to the dyno. I'm hoping to get between 300 and 350 rwhp at 18 psi - something I am told is within reach of the k27/8.
Ski: That was from a Mustang Dyno.
Toddk911: That dyno was with APE stage 2 chips. I've since installed Danno's chips and bigger injectors. My clutch packed it in before I could make it to the dyno. I'm hoping to get between 300 and 350 rwhp at 18 psi - something I am told is within reach of the k27/8.
Ski: That was from a Mustang Dyno.
10-31-2002, 12:51 AM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
If you get 300 to 350 on a Mustang then you'll bust a gut if you put it on a Dynojet! You could acutally pick pick up 50-70hp on paper alone, not to mention torque! Mustangs tend to read lower on the scale.
I turned (VERY RICH-down to 11.2 at one point, without the cam in the 363 package - made on a dynojet at 20 psi)262 at 16psi. The car weighed in at 2820+185 for me. I just got Dannos Ver.7 chips in, plug on and FQS #1 for 55# inj. I'll take it to the dyno in two weeks, check A/F curves, and then set it 18psi.
We had a dyno day Saturday for our club, 31 cars showed up so we only got two runs each - no O2 logging. Anyway, on this Mustang dyno, a custom 930, custom motor (engine dyno'd at 402hp when built) turned in 264 hp, 292 torque @ 1.1 bar. He had a previous Dynojet sheet showing 328 and 370!
I turned (VERY RICH-down to 11.2 at one point, without the cam in the 363 package - made on a dynojet at 20 psi)262 at 16psi. The car weighed in at 2820+185 for me. I just got Dannos Ver.7 chips in, plug on and FQS #1 for 55# inj. I'll take it to the dyno in two weeks, check A/F curves, and then set it 18psi.
We had a dyno day Saturday for our club, 31 cars showed up so we only got two runs each - no O2 logging. Anyway, on this Mustang dyno, a custom 930, custom motor (engine dyno'd at 402hp when built) turned in 264 hp, 292 torque @ 1.1 bar. He had a previous Dynojet sheet showing 328 and 370!
11-01-2002, 11:20 AM
#22
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SoloRacer - have you ever pushed on the "barn-door" with your hand? There is A LOT of resistance to movement. Air has to push it open with the same force. Also the more open it is, the more the air has to push it open. What I mean by that is when pushing it with your hand you can apply force in the direction that gives the most movement. The intake air doesn't work that way - it's just trying to go as straight a path as possible to get to the turbo. I'll bet that you need a heck of a lot more than twice as much air to open the door between say 30 degrees and 60 degrees. I'd bet that the number is more like 4 times as much or more.
I feel that it has to be a HUGE air restriction, and removing it must see tremendous improvements in spool-up time and low-end torque.
I absolutely believe that 400HP+ is possible with the stock AFM, but I also believe that if they took their 400HP vehicle and converted it to a map sensor, they's see another 50Hp on top of it without doing anything else.
I just think it's crazy not to think that the stock AFM is not a huge restriction. Have you ever seen/used/ridden in/on a vehicle with an exhaust restrictor plate? I was truly blown away by the difference in power with it intalled and removed. I feel the same applies to the intake.
MJ
<img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" />
I feel that it has to be a HUGE air restriction, and removing it must see tremendous improvements in spool-up time and low-end torque.
I absolutely believe that 400HP+ is possible with the stock AFM, but I also believe that if they took their 400HP vehicle and converted it to a map sensor, they's see another 50Hp on top of it without doing anything else.
I just think it's crazy not to think that the stock AFM is not a huge restriction. Have you ever seen/used/ridden in/on a vehicle with an exhaust restrictor plate? I was truly blown away by the difference in power with it intalled and removed. I feel the same applies to the intake.
MJ
<img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" />
11-01-2002, 01:57 PM
#23
Race Director
Yup, we picked up 1.5psi of boost automatically by removing the barn-door. I would think the higher the boost, the higher the power-output, the higher the flow-rates, the bigger a restriction the barn-door becomes. Why bother with head-porting, extrude honing, free-flow intake-manifolds when the cross-sectional area of the AFM is less than the stock throttle-body? And it has to flow a larger volume of uncompressed air too.
A good test is a back-to-back comparison for those who have our Stg.1 MAP kits. Install the MAP kit and drive around for a week or so to get used to the extra power (remember, 260rwhp/300lb-ft TQ @ 15psi is a lot more power than stock). Then re-insert the barn-door AFM just physically, don't hook up the wires to reduce the variables. I assure you, the difference will be so dramatic, you'll immediately throw the AFM into the nearest lake!
A good test is a back-to-back comparison for those who have our Stg.1 MAP kits. Install the MAP kit and drive around for a week or so to get used to the extra power (remember, 260rwhp/300lb-ft TQ @ 15psi is a lot more power than stock). Then re-insert the barn-door AFM just physically, don't hook up the wires to reduce the variables. I assure you, the difference will be so dramatic, you'll immediately throw the AFM into the nearest lake!
11-01-2002, 02:47 PM
#24
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by Danno:
<strong>
A good test is a back-to-back comparison for those who have our Stg.1 MAP kits. Install the MAP kit and drive around for a week or so to get used to the extra power (remember, 260rwhp/300lb-ft TQ @ 15psi is a lot more power). Then re-insert the barn-door AFM just physically, don't hook up the wires to reduce the variables. I assure you, the difference will be so dramatic, you'll immediately throw the AFM into the nearest lake! </strong><hr></blockquote>
I have some hard data to compare AFM to MAF. At 15 psi on the same dyno but different days, the AFM made max 247Hp and the MAF made 249Hp. On my car not a lot of difference in horsepower. Torque was a peak of 247 for the AFM and 270 for the MAF. The real story was that the MAF made almost 45 lb-ft more torque at 3000rpm! That is the difference you would feel in the seat of the pants.
Was the difference due to air flow or due to the ability to control the mixture at any rpm range? Well, on the AFM run the AFR was 11.4 at 3000rpm, on the MAF run the AFR was at 12.5. At 3000rpm airflow I don't think the AFM presents such a huge restriction so it is most likely the fuel mixture that made the difference. At the higher rpm of 6400 the AFM made 185 lb-ft and the MAF made 190lb-ft. AT 6400rpm the AFR on both runs was almost identical at 11.4.
I know the physics may strongly indicate the MAP or MAF should be a lot better, but in practice it didn't show up on my car. Again the only difference was the MAF and the car had stock injectors.
Dan
<strong>
A good test is a back-to-back comparison for those who have our Stg.1 MAP kits. Install the MAP kit and drive around for a week or so to get used to the extra power (remember, 260rwhp/300lb-ft TQ @ 15psi is a lot more power). Then re-insert the barn-door AFM just physically, don't hook up the wires to reduce the variables. I assure you, the difference will be so dramatic, you'll immediately throw the AFM into the nearest lake!
</strong><hr></blockquote>I have some hard data to compare AFM to MAF. At 15 psi on the same dyno but different days, the AFM made max 247Hp and the MAF made 249Hp. On my car not a lot of difference in horsepower. Torque was a peak of 247 for the AFM and 270 for the MAF. The real story was that the MAF made almost 45 lb-ft more torque at 3000rpm! That is the difference you would feel in the seat of the pants.
Was the difference due to air flow or due to the ability to control the mixture at any rpm range? Well, on the AFM run the AFR was 11.4 at 3000rpm, on the MAF run the AFR was at 12.5. At 3000rpm airflow I don't think the AFM presents such a huge restriction so it is most likely the fuel mixture that made the difference. At the higher rpm of 6400 the AFM made 185 lb-ft and the MAF made 190lb-ft. AT 6400rpm the AFR on both runs was almost identical at 11.4.
I know the physics may strongly indicate the MAP or MAF should be a lot better, but in practice it didn't show up on my car. Again the only difference was the MAF and the car had stock injectors.
Dan
11-01-2002, 04:11 PM
#25
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FILLMORE ca.
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One must remember that those are peak horse power numbers but across the board the barn door is a big restriction.Do what Danno suggested and put the afm back in place but not hooked up you will see we shure did(thats for those who can).
06-14-2003, 10:04 PM
#27
Danno,
How did you like Shanes car?
Just an MAF gives 10 HP and that not much for over $1000. I heard this from several engine builders. JME makes over 400 HP with the AFM. I think the MAF give better response mainly and the ability to tune will give you the bigger numbers.
How did you like Shanes car?
Just an MAF gives 10 HP and that not much for over $1000. I heard this from several engine builders. JME makes over 400 HP with the AFM. I think the MAF give better response mainly and the ability to tune will give you the bigger numbers.
06-14-2003, 10:04 PM
#28
Danno,
How did you like Shanes car?
Just an MAF gives 10 HP and that not much for over $1000. I heard this from several engine builders. JME makes over 400 HP with the AFM. I think the MAF give better response mainly and the ability to tune will give you the bigger numbers.
How did you like Shanes car?
Just an MAF gives 10 HP and that not much for over $1000. I heard this from several engine builders. JME makes over 400 HP with the AFM. I think the MAF give better response mainly and the ability to tune will give you the bigger numbers.
06-15-2003, 04:32 AM
#29
Race Director
Shane's car is very, very sweet! So clean, I can eat off it! I suspect he's got a weak wastegate which is forcing his K27 to over-rev in order to keep boost at 15psi in the upper-RPMs (thus overheating the air). Once he upgrades his wastegate and gets larger injectors, I suspect we can get about 320-340rwhp @ 15psi boost on his car.
Comparing MAF to AFM configurations is difficult because so much has to be upgraded. Just removing the AFM and stiking a MAF in will automatically increase boost by 1.5-2.5psi. So do you turn down the boost on a MAF upgrade to generate the same boost as before?
Another way to look at it is to see how much can be generated by the turbo at its maximum. Take the JME engine that created 400hp with AFM and stick a MAF on and you'll probably see 440hp.
Actually an accurate test of MAF vs. AFM is to upgrade to MAF and get it all dialed in. Do a baseline run with the MAF only. Then just stick the AFM onto the inlet of the J-pipe instead of the K&N filter and you'll notice a dramatic difference in power. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
Comparing MAF to AFM configurations is difficult because so much has to be upgraded. Just removing the AFM and stiking a MAF in will automatically increase boost by 1.5-2.5psi. So do you turn down the boost on a MAF upgrade to generate the same boost as before?
Another way to look at it is to see how much can be generated by the turbo at its maximum. Take the JME engine that created 400hp with AFM and stick a MAF on and you'll probably see 440hp.
Actually an accurate test of MAF vs. AFM is to upgrade to MAF and get it all dialed in. Do a baseline run with the MAF only. Then just stick the AFM onto the inlet of the J-pipe instead of the K&N filter and you'll notice a dramatic difference in power. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
06-15-2003, 04:51 AM
#30
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight confusion on my part... someone mentioned getting ~290 HP @ 15 psi... this was for an '89 951. Is this 'test car' that travis brought up also an '89?
Note: K26/6 and K26/8 turbos are in fact different. A K26/8 will make more power. Period. We're comparing a turbo s-spec to a regular turbo. If I recall, all 89+ models were turbo s spec. In 88, you could get either, and in 86-87, there were only K26/2 turbos available.
Note: K26/6 and K26/8 turbos are in fact different. A K26/8 will make more power. Period. We're comparing a turbo s-spec to a regular turbo. If I recall, all 89+ models were turbo s spec. In 88, you could get either, and in 86-87, there were only K26/2 turbos available.