tonytaylor

The 964C2/C4 and 964RS use the same engine/exhaust/intake but Porsche claim an extra 10hp. The only difference is the mapping on the motronic.

BTW both Loren and Adrian have stated I wouldn't get the hp I do from Geoffs conversion yet Simons car and two other 964RSs I know off make almost identical power withthe same kit. IIRC the Sportec kit fitted to Adrians C4 is essentially the same thing.

Adrian

Simon,
If you feel it's all proven then why haven't you done it? Why is your 964RS not at 9M right now getting its engine upgraded to 340hp with a Motec ECU?
The quickest way to shut people up is to get the job done and then say; "here it is the proof is in the pudding".
By the way I was referring to Motec in Europe that is why is used the words "here" meaning Switzerland and "Europe" referring to the lands that surround me. It's easy to check all Motec's dealers.
Ciao,
Adrian.

Adrian

Tony,
Please refresh my memory. I have absolutely no memory of you, your car, a specific kit or even which Geoff you are speaking about so I would love to see where I said this. I might have said what you accuse me of, but it must have been pre 2004 because I stopped getting involved in these discussions a long ago. I would like to see the context of the discussion. Many things get misunderstood especially during an argument.
It would have been on a 964 forum thread so maybe you can find it and if as you say I disparaged one of the Geoff's I could at least apologise.
However I don't trust my own memory and I certainly don't trust yours, so I would appreciate the thread so I can read what I really said and apologise if required.
By the way it is no longer Adrian's C4. This car is now back in Germany with a new owner who is restoring it.
I have seen more than one standard 964RS putting out around 280hp at the flywheel. I always believed that Porsche were fudging the figures on the RS for their own purposes.
Ciao,
Adrian.

SimonExtreme

There is a section in Adrian's book that shows the results of changing DME's on a constant car. Now, the implication is that the only difference in DME could be the mapping. The difference between most power and least power was 18bhp. Therefore, does this suggest that you can gain power by the mapping?

I have also read Loren previously state that he has seen chips that reduce power. On this we agree! However, for there to be nothing else to gain, it would mean that the original engineers absolutely maximised the map. Possible, but it doesn't explain why you can increase the power by fitting different Porsche part numbered DME's.

Jean

Splitting hairs....

Sure you can get some HP by tweaking a stock ECU, but it will be very limited, a few HP max, 10HP (Porsche numbers) reason being stock engines are meant to last long rather than being maximum squeezable performance, for which you have the RS. The engine types on the C2 and the RS are different, although, agreed they seem to have the same specs.

The 18 BHP difference must have been seen on a chassis dyno not bearing in mind engine load, once on the road most likely they will dissipate.

As rightly mentioned earlier, Motronic maximizes the tuning since the knock sensors let you have the maximum timing possible before it is pulled back for engine protection. Any other system without the knock sensors will need to keep a certain safety margin, this applies to both stock , as well as tuned engines. Finding the right tuner is paramount in both applications.

You have two good examples of great performers with Motronic from the US and Europe with quite a few hard miles on them already in the example of my car and TB993TT's car tuned by RS Tuning, as well as many RUF cars out there, and Sportec etc... I have yet to see a single EFI turbo engine providing similar performance for the same weight and the rather conservative 1.1 Bar that we run.

I understand this is a N/A discussion but as I said earlier, I am running a N/A Motronic ECU, same as what you guys have, the principles of extracting torque are exactly the same with the added complexity of turbocharging.

Adrian

Yes you are correct, but the car was also driven with these "Porsche Motorsports" DMEs installed and it was a pig to drive and totally useless for normal road use. The 964 Carrera 2 used was also an option M150 version running without emissions, using a barometric sensor and it ran on leaded petrol so the results cannot really be compared to the standard versions of the 964. I was not aware the 964 was an option M150 until after the book was published. Similar results would NOT appear on unleaded emissions controlled cars.
However even if they did there is a LOT more to tuning a car than just "mapping" a DME to increase power at 6100rpm. There is a word we use in the game and its called "driveability". Your simplistic way of looking at these issues is never going to prove your point.
Take your 964RS into Colin and show us all what the Motec can really do. If your RS can leave 9M with a 3.6 litre engine with 340hp I will be among the first to congratulate you and 9M and I will ask for details so the project can be included in any new revision of my 964 book.
If however you think you can just remapp and walk away with 340hp you are going to be seriously disappointed.
Ciao,
Adrian.

Red rooster

Oh dear,

Loren ,
WOT fuel is not O2 dependent.

Adrian,
There is no reason why you should know me. You are not a tuner. Good to see Uli in your pic . A good guy.
Sorry if that sounds rude but I should never have joined in on this thread !

Jean ,
Do you really believe that an RS delivering 260 bhp is at the end of its performance envelope ?

It would have been good to see something come out of this thead. Colin has presented a load of data some of which I know , by a round about route, to be accurate.
It was the Motec stuff that interested me and how the results were being obtained through mapping.

Looks like we have the same old conflict -" any improvement is impossible "versus "Motec does it ".

It doesnt look like either side will listen to the other so I guess its all pretty pointless .

Have fun.

Geoff

Geoffrey

On a Dynapack chassis dyno with a 1990 Cup Car with a 5 hour fresh 964 Cup engine that I blueprinted which includes exactly 11.3:1 compression, no cat, no mufflers, cup airbox, and running 93 octane Mobil fuel, the Euro RS and Cup Car brains both produced 7ft/lb of torque and 10hp at the wheels more compared to a stock C2 brain. Both the Euro RS and the Cup Car brain produced identical curves which suggest they may be the same mapping. The ignition timing in the Euro RS is 3-4 degrees advance over the standard C2 brain. I had several chips made with increased timing and they did not produce any additional power.


"Motronic maximizes the tuning since the knock sensors let you have the maximum timing possible before it is pulled back for engine protection"

Jean, when I tune an engine, I run the timing where the engine makes the most torque for each cell. I run the timing at the minimum value that produces the most torque and in the 2v 911 aircooled engine there are several degrees before the engine detonates where the engine makes the same torque. Once the engine begins to detonate, the torque begins to fall off. This is the same method as Todd uses to tune your engine. So, while I have no protection against detonation using knock sensors, the engine is producing maximum torque, leaving nothing on the table and my safety margin is the few degrees of ignition timing where the engine makes consistent maximum torque.

Your ECU is also more like an aftermarket ECU in that it has been modified to have fuel metered by a MAP sensor that has been soldered into your system and the programming tables changed to reflect MAP rather than AFM or in the case of your 1995 993 ECU MAF. I think it is a good approach, but is as far from a stock ECU as an aftermarket ECU is and is a custom designed piece of equipemnt from Todd.

SimonExtreme

I probabaly will, once I have got my head around the Aussie import situation!

I do not expect to get 340bhp from just fitting the Motec and mapping it and Colin has never claimed that. As for congratulating 9M, surely we can do that already as he has produced the results on another car and posted them here. And if you are serious about a new version of the book, I would be happy to ensure there are photos etc if you want them, assuming the results are as they are meant to be!!!

NineMeister

Adrian,
Thanks for posting the photo of your 964 C4 being mapped by Sportec. It is reassuring to see that they use a 4wd version of the same Bosch FLA203 dyno that I have (i.e. not a Maha), therefore the Motec results from the 964RS test that I presented (much earlier in the thread) should be directly comparable to their measurements & your own experience.

As an aside, on the basis that Bosch had discontinued production of this excellent tool a couple of years ago and therefore could no longer support or upgrade the software or computer for us, I recently had the control system changed by Dynostar. The dyno now works in exactly the same way as it did with the Bosch control system, now running on a Pentium PC rather than the old built-in 286 with a 700k floppy (remember these?).

(Not specifically in reply to Adrian: )
It is a shame, but looking back over this thread, without counting them I would guess that less than 30% of the posts relate to Motec (which was the starting subject) whereas the other 70% or so are either promoting/defending the virtues & use of Motronic or attempting to undermine the suitability of Motec in this application. To me there seems no point in continuing a discussion in this way, since we all have our own agendas and interests. At one point I thought that we had all agreed to disagree which is why I "groaned" when Jean stirred it all up again (no offence taken Jean, as ever I respect your opinions) but this is obviously not the case and there is a lot more to be debated, which is good.

So what, if anything, can we conclude from these posts? Here is my take:

The only real data presented (by anyone) on this thread are the chassis dyno runs from the series of tests that I did in my own time on a customers car at 9m on our aforementioned Bosch chassis dyno. I believe that these results more than support any performance claims (either here, on the 9m website or past magazine articles) that have been made for the 9m conversion, i.e. from the intake/exhaust/injector/ecu modifications, not just from a change of ecu. Yes, this is what I sell, period. I make no claims as to its suitability for road use, for different fuels or for emissions compliance. Suprisingly I have found that 9m customers are adults who know what they want, in this case understanding its advantages and shortcomings and who have decided to have Motec fitted and go away happy with the end result.

Then we come to the alternative option to rework the Motronic. As far as I know, in 17 years nobody has ever managed to get more performance from a stock 964 engine as I have with Motec. As Jean and Toby point out there are questions about testing methods but my results are also vindicated by the performance of the cars on the blacktop, so this is not the only story. Anyway, given the passion that many have expressed in retaining the stock ecu system with all the advantages that it seems to have, I find it strange that there appears to be a complete lack of data from its supporters or users. Since Motronic has been on the car for 17 years, where are all the engine/chassis dyno results which show how much the system can be adapted to fulfil the true performance needs of the n/a 964 engine?
I truly would like to see a Motronic 964 beat me at my own game (but I'm not holding my breath!), so much so that anyone who thinks that their Motronic equipped 964 (with stock engine & headers) is the one that will beat our Motec conversion can come to our premises and I'll test their car for free.

So where do we go from here?

Can I suggest that all those good folk who are obviously passionate about Motronic start another thread titled "Motronic remapping for maximum power" and lets see what information we can all dig up on what is really possible?

In the meantime I (and no doubt other "lesser" tuners) will continue using Motec for all its shortcomings which should allow me to concentrate efforts on the 9m aircooled engine development program which is rapidly coming to a head (pun intended).

Adrian

Probably that is not very encouraging
Thank you for your offer, but I could have got that stuff already if I had wanted it. I will wait until your 964RS produces the goods. I have more important things to deal with at the moment so I can wait until your project produces a 340hp road legal car using a Motec ECU and all the other bits required to get up to that level of power.
Ciao,
Adrian.

PS: Geoff you are right it was rude, but you are correct I am not a Tuner; that is being person who makes a living out of tuning cars such as yourself. I am much worse than that. I am a Customer who demands value for money and truth in advertising. I also have the technical knowledge, hands on experience and engineering background to challenge anyone I think is pulling the wool over other's eyes.
Not that I am saying directly anyone is doing this in this thread either. The information flow is somewhat lacking in some areas and details are hazy, but I am sure when a final product is ready from anyone it will be explained and hopefully the claimed output guaranteed like Ueli does.

Lorenfb

"WOT fuel is not O2 dependent." - Red Rooster -

Who said that????????????? Read again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"For a totally stock engine, it's called let's "push" the timing maps, as the fuel maps
get tweaked by the O2 sensor (AFR = 14.7) which yields the basic same max torque
as 12.6 (basially flat torque curve from 11.5 to 14.7) except WOT which Porsche/Bosch
was fairly close to the optimum for their mapping with the AFM."

That's the BIG problem on this thread. Typical!

Chris M.

I believe such a car has already been produced and the accompanying dyno graph is on page one of this thread.

c

Jean

Geoff, who said that!!!!! Now, a stock M64/03 engine with only programming modifications which is what we were talking about? Yes! I will agree to a few ponies more, nothing worth mentioning... Not talking about few second chassis dyno runs here.

Jean

Geoffrey,

What you describe above is exactly my understanding as well, and the sentence you quoted me saying is not in disagreement. Within my humble customer limited knowledge I do agree that you certainly tune for maximum torque without "using" knock sensors.

However, I think you also agree and I think I read it elsewhere, that this is being done under very specific conditions, on a chassis dyno with certain fuel octane and temperatures, or a certain road test drive and tune. However a tuner that has never hurt (not break) on high strung street engine because of having a little too much timing and no knock sensors to protect it is not a common one.

If you don't keep a certain limited safety margin, and the "highly tuned" street car goes for a ride to California with 91 octane under WOT without changing the programming, it will go bang! I know of one (964 turbo) that did recently in Texas, and it was one of the fastest and best Motec tuned engines around..

If you have a Motronic tune, and you go to California with 91 octane (or Saudi with 89 ) your knock sensors will protect you by pulling the timing and your car will simply perform poorly (slower). I think it is pretty obvious that with Motronic, you can push the envelop a bit further because your don't run the risk of the damaging detonation.

So for a highly strung (340BHP?) street car going around places and using different fuels and being used in summer and winter, the Motronic will let you tune more aggressively, while with Motec you might need a certain (limited) safety net, otherwise it would not be prudent. For a race car with constant racing fuel octane and a Motec (TAG or other) tuner available in the pits, it certainly is the best solution out there, no doubt about it, and this is why some of the Porsche racing cars use them, for practicality purposes (per Paul Frere as well)