NineMeister

Either.

What I am saying is that I have live remapped both the 964 and 993 engine in flap and hot film mode, and then gone on to fit MoTeC. MoTeC made more power in all cases. There are other factors involved, like the ability to properly time the injector closing point so this cannot be determined as a scientific test, but I am satisfied and therefore will continue to go down this road.

As for the flap being a restriction - if I get a chance I may try it - however I have previously recorded over 300bhp on a 964RS with a flap installed so I do not think that there will be a huge difference.

As a matter of interest, would you also say that the 68mm throttle body is a restriction and that we would make more power if it was bored out to 70mm to match the intake of the plenum?

Red rooster

Colin,
Interesting. From your results it looks like there is something that Motec is doing in terms of getting the fuel in ( injector timing ? ) say ,that Motronic is not, assuming the same ingition timing .
Do you always fit the larger flow injectors with Motec ? Have you tried the same injectors with Motronic , remap to suit ?
A bit puzzling as if exhaust measured fuelling is OK I would assume that the motor was happy. Maybe its that dangerous word " assume " !!

I wouldnt believe that an extra 2mm on TB ID would make much difference or are you going to tell me different !
All the best

Geoff

Lorenfb

"Interesting. From your results it looks like there is something that Motec is doing in terms of getting the fuel in ( injector timing ? ) say ,that Motronic is not, assuming the same ingition timing ."

Please! Something the Motec has done & incapable for Bosch/Porsche???????

As mentioned, there're too many variables to correlate an engine mgmt system, e.g. Motec,
to increased HPs, i.e. VERY unscientific!

"I wouldnt believe that an extra 2mm on TB ID would make much difference or are you going to tell me different !"

Right on! This thread is losing credibility.

Red rooster

Lorenfb,
Colin is saying he can get better results with Motec than with Motronic. Like yourself , I can see no obvious reason why this should be BUT lets let him tell us .
I am trying to get to the variable that is responsible for the result. If we understood that ,then modifying Motronic to do the same could be worthwhile ?
Sorry if you dont share my interest.

Geoff

RallyDogRacing

I will chime in here that my experience with (034-EFI, Motec & Autronic) is that I as the end-user have complete and utter control to modify any parameter governed by such a system, whereas in Motronic there are generally few people who truly understand the code & the supported systems enough to be able to really eek-out the Nth degree of refinement (power).

Now, I will also say that the drivability (day to day) of a 3rd party engine management system isn't nearly as refined as the factory - which shouldn't be amazing to anyone give the dollars that manufacturers put into tuning across all scenarios.

The max-power (hp/torque) differential can be realized for tuning for the specific environment of the day. In the simplest terms your stock Motronic has a set of tables that attempt to cover all possible temps, altitudes, usage parameters and densities you will encounter. There aren't limitless cells in the tables to cover all of those things, therefore the cells and values present give you reasonable performance across the broadest spectrum of operability. It's the generalist approach and absolutely best suited to 99.5% of the usage of a vehicle.

What the 3rd party systems allow is that on a given day you can alter your timing or injection to match the conditions. EXAMPLE: When driving my 034-EFI car (sorry this is an Audi) in Chicago at 22lbs of boost I had a max-injector duration of 16.73ms (@3bar FP on GT3 injectors). Driving the same car to Denver I found that I needed to change the value of the max scaler down slightly in order to deal with the thinner atmo. Crossing Vail Pass @ 22psi I could see by my EGTs that I really would need to pull more fuel to maintain max power were I to stay at that extreme altitude. What you can infer by this example is that a middle of the road setting on fuel would be slightly non-optimall at sea level as it would at extreme altitude. Having a custom programble system allows you to tune to the given environment. Super advanced 3rd party systems that run WideBack-02 sensors (especially those running 1/cyl) get hyper accurate analysis of the combustion and can grant more or less authority to the fueling system changes by that component as well.

Also you can run it speed-density and get restrictions away from the intake side of the engine because you simply don't need a MAF since everything is table driven. And yes absolutely you can make a 3rd party system pass emissions on speed-density.

I'll say again however - for daily use I rather enjoy my Motronic. Were my 964 exclusively a track/rally machine - I'd drop it in a heart-beat and go 034-EFI or Motec.

Geoffrey

I concur with Colin's experience with Motronic and MoTeC as well, but in my case, it is the ability to access all of the tables in real time which provides for easy manipulation while on a dyno. If you leave the AFM inline, it will reduce the power output, it is a restriction in the air inlet. I fully believe in the flexibility of MoTeC for road and race cars.

The reason that aftermarket engine management systems are perceived to not run as well as factory systems is directly related to the tuners out there. Very few understand anything other than WOT, and few take the time to do drivability tests, cold starting, warm-up, etc. It isn't complicated, but it does take time and many customers' don't understand that it takes an OEM 100,000 man hours to program today's engine mangement systems to meet all of the requirements for emissions, fuel economy, and the wide range of operating conditions the engine will be used in. An aftermarket engine mangement system is as capable as an OEM system, but it requires a tuner who wants to spend the time to get it right.

RallyDog, the reason your Audi did not run correctly at 5000ft was because the pressure compensation table was not set properly. This is why better engine management systems like MoTeC can have an altitude correction applied, and if it is programmed properly, then it will run correctly under all conditions, I gaurentee it. We are dealing with physics here, PV=NrT and the math formulas don't change. The only variable a nonMAF car cannot deal with is the changes in VE% as the engine wears, but I don't think they are as much an issue as they have been made out to be.

RallyDogRacing

It should be noted that I was using an older 034-EFI which (as hypothisized above) didn't have an alt-comp table. Later versions of this product line do. I agree totally that the MoTeC line doe have significantly greater capability, it's what we run in the Open class rally car.

I tuned my non-WOT tables to the best of my ability but lacked enough rudimentary knowledge to truly understand which values I needed to massage for max smoothness and drivabilty.

It was certiainly not my intention to infer that the aftermarket systems were incapable of being as drivable as Motronic; simply I've not driven one yet (nor programmed myself) that I determined to be as smooth...

I'm a fan, but not for my current usage profile.

Red rooster

Geoffrey,
Why is a 90mm Hot film sensor a restrictor to air flow ? Its a plastic tube that is bigger than the throttle .
I can understand the "ability to tune " feature of Motec , what I want to know is why ,with everything else being equal ,claims are made that Motec gives more power than Motronic ??
One reason for the interest is that every 964 comes with a "free " Motronic ECU!!
All the best
Geoff

Geoffrey

I did not say MAF, but AFM as the above poster asked Colin.

AFM = Air Flow Meter and it is a restriction due to the flapper mechanism inside as well as the size and shape of it.

Red rooster

Geoffrey,
So you agree that the Flap is a problem ? Colin did not think it made much difference if the Flap was replaced by a Hot film sensor.
I am still asking why Motec is a better power producer than Motronic .
It looks as though an inability to recalibrate Motronic is the answer, unless anyone out there knows the reason.
All the best
Geoff

Heirsh

the system in the 964 is 15 years old, more if you count development. I saw it mentioned in a previous thread, I think by Colin, that Motec has more processing speed than Motronic. Its many many years newer, so it should. The faster the system can get all the input the faster it can make the minute adjustments necessary to keep peak power.

I had a computer back in 90. I have one today. How much faster is it? I'd say over 100 times faster (you wouldnt know it by the operating system that got chunkier at about the same rate). Now if Motec can process data and make changes 100 times faster than the motronic of its day it should be pretty simple to see why it can make more power. (No I am not saying it is 100 times faster, just making a broad corelation from computer technology).

Red rooster

Heirsh,
What you have said is relevant to ECU development but not in this case unfortunately.
It is pretty straightfoward to relate the processing power available to the tasks to be performed.As systems have expanded , particularly in the area of diagnostics ( OBDII ) , the power required has grown . This has not been helped by OE developers moving to high level language code as opposed to assembler as used in the 964.
The 964 ECU has no particular speed issues as the various functions are spread into seperate timer chips etc.
I agree totally with your comments re PCs. How did I do anything with a 20 Meg Hard disc and a 20 MHz 16 bit processor !!!!!!
Geoff

Geoffrey

Red, yes, I think the flap in the 964 AFM represents a restriction.

The speeds at which the ECU is looking at things is in the millisecond range. Computers/ECUs are in the nanosecond range. Even the slowest 8 bit processor in an Electromotive TEC system is faster than an engine requires so while a MoTeC ECU may have a better/faster processor than Motronics, I don't think it is what makes the difference. I believe it is the real time access to the programming tables that makes the difference.

Heirsh

I was under the impression the stock system was not capable of reacting quick enough to a number of things. One being rpm drop, thus is why the lwf is such a problem. Is this not the case?

Geoffrey

I don't believe that is why the engines stall with the LWF. I believe if you increased the timing at say 500rpm on the idle map that would solve the stalling issue with the LWF. You might also alter the idle air control valve parameters. This is what I've had to do with MoTeC and small flywheels, and I'm talking 5.5" Tilton clutches with an aluminum flywheel which is far lighter than the lightweight flywheel ALONE weighs.