Geoffrey

N51,

I have no idea about Chister's experience, I can only comment on my own and the customer's cars that I've done. My two personal cars that I've done - 911 Turbo and 964RSR have always run fine. The Turbo had a lot of initial time spent in drivability and fine tuning as I tried several different mapping strategies and other items to push the limits of the engine. It was also the first stand alone engine management system I work with. Things like running the engine at 15.2:1 AFR under cruise to mapping it with TPS + MAP compensation and then later strictly MAP were the cause of additional programming. It was a developmental car for me to probe the limits of what was possible. In the last engine configuration, I tuned the engine and didn't touch it again until I parted the car out which included about 150hrs of track driving. My current RSR has 2 hours of tuning on a dyno and probably could use some fine tuning here and there based on the data logging, but it is unnoticable by anyone driving it. It is the difference of say a .85 lambda v. 88 lambda I'd like it to run at in a few places. It also started and idled without throttle at the last event in 40 degree weather with only a guess as to the cold start compensation based on my experience with other engines.

Jason,

I'm not using the 4d mapping. I feel that feature is unnecessary in a normal engine configuration. When I installed and tuned the 996GT2 engine the 4d mapping would have been useful to slice the MAP vs RPM load tables by whether the camshafts were advanced or retarded. In fact, the stock motronics only allows 0 degrees of advance or 32 degrees of advance due to the use of an on/off output. I was able to feed a PWM signal to the camshaft actuators and move the cams a degree at a time. While I didn't find any significant use for this since it was installed in a racing car, it did prove that it was possible. So, in this case, the MoTeC could do something that the factory Motronics could not. 4D mapping is not going to be necessary on the 964 and is not available on the ECU provided in the 9M kit.

You ask what software would I need to try Motronics. If you made available to me something that I could have full access to all of the engine control tables in an easy to read user interface, that would be a start. I have no intention and no patience for reading hex code or poorly written user interfaces. Further, I would need some way to do live remapping, either by a ribbon cable plugged into the ECU where software changes can be made real time or some other similar method. Simply burning chips, trying them, and burning them with changes again and repeating the process is useless to me. It has to be live so steady state tuning can be accomplished and minimum timing/best torque can be determined so the engine will never detonate. This is the same process as used with MoTeC. Even with this capability I will bet that in a fair test, MoTeC will produce better numbers...I don't know why, it has just been my experience.

Colin's kit removes the AFM which is a restriction and is reflected in the torque number, but is used as a requirement for metering engine load in stock Motronics. If you were able to change the load value to something else like MAP, that would be even better.

I do have a 1987 924S that I use for the engine mangement classes I teach. It is 100% stock. The students in the advanced class map this car using MAP and then later using TPS. It regularly makes 15hp more on a standalone ECU than it does on the factory ECU, and that is with the AFM in place, but not functioning when the standalone ECU is used. In other words, it is an exact test where only the ECU is changed. Further gains can be made by removing the AFM. And this is with students tuning the car, many of whom have never seen a dyno used a stand alone ECU before.

These arguements do get tiresome...Assuming that everyone believed that installing MoTeC on their engine would get them 315hp, I would be surprised if there were 6 people ready and willing to pay $6500 to do so, so the market is very small. My point is that there is a lot of effort here with minimal returns.

SimonExtreme

I cannot claim to have had a mappable ecu on a Porsche but I have a lot fo experience of running such ecu's on cars. My Evo ran GEMS (a competitor of Motec) for 2 years, averaging 18,000 miles a year and about 5 trackdays. The only time we played with the map was when trying new components. I didn't have a single problem. I know a significant number of people who run GEMS on their daily drives and I also know a significant number who run Motec on their cars.

I find the concept that fitting Motec or any other reputable mappable ecu would make the cars less reliable strange. There is a risk that if you use a lot of non standard sensors, there is more to go wrong but on Evo's I have seen no evidence of this being a problem.

Obviously, I am aware of Christer's situation which highlights the issues of when things do go wrong. And there lies the problem. As soon as you start changing things that the main dealer or local specialist cannot support, you could be in trouble. If that is your concern, then I don't think Motec is for you. For me, if it was a problem, I would probably keep all the parts and Motronics so that I could have them swapped back in an emergency.

SimonExtreme

I had really expected to find that somebody had produced such an interface. Maybe the market isn't big enough to warrant the development costs.

It's the same for all mappable ecu's. The key is being able to map conventionally.

And mine. I suspect it is because of more mapping points, better visuals and more options.

Chris M.

This all sounds like a great opportunity for another Total911 article comparing the remapped cars vs. stock 964s ala the 9M/4T heads article. Take 'em to the track and drive 'em.
Colin/Geoffrey- can this Motec conversion be done to 993s with the same results?

c

KirkF

I hate to even comment on this heated debate, but the facts seem rather simple to me.

Motronic makes an excellent ECU. The units delivered for the 964 were custom made to suit our cars with the installed sensors and actuators. The software to reprogram these units is available but difficult to use and several generations behind the currently available tuning software.

The Motec system is current and completely open. Any number of shops worldwide are equipped and trained to use it. It allows aftermarket tuners to change the inputs and actuators they want to use to achieve maximum horspower from an engine. You can use AFMs, MAFs TPS's or whatever your heart desires along with easily setup fuel and ignition mapping to tune your motor to individual engines, and local conditions, fuels, etc.

It would cost a tuner far too much time (money) to work with the motronic units. If bosch had opened up their ECUs with current software and a catalog of changeable sensors, etc it might be a different story. But thats not their market.

I can easily believe that the Motec units, properly installed and mapped on a dyno will achieve significant horsepower increases because you are tuning your engine to the enviroment and current state in real time. The motronics were sent out with a map suitable to be used anywhere, with any octane fuel, etc. They run on the safe side to minimize engine damage or poor running that would cause customer complaints and warranty work.
When you add the fact that you can change your exhaust and intake and then map to the new conditions, there is certainly horsepower to be gained.

And thats my .02

I would still rather buy a tpc supercharger. hee hee.

Kirk

Smokin

You and me both!

Red rooster

I believe that Motec units are password locked to stop owners/other tuners downloading the ECU content ? If that is true, a car mapped by Colin in the UK would be a brick for an Australian tuner !

It is perfectly feasible to reconfigure a M2.1 Motronic DME to run with throttle position as the major load input .I did that job for the M2.1.1 993 system a few years ago. As Jason has pointed out there is no significant market to justify the effort for the 964 .

Good to see the 300bhp RS result .

All the best

Geoff

Colin 90 C2

Colin, was there a specific reason you chose to use a MAP sensor over a MAF sensor? I know that major manufacturers(GM, Ford, etc) have jumped between the two, but I only assumed it was for cost reasons. Does the MAP give you better flow characteristics?

Laurence Gibbs

Jason and Geoff, can you point me in the direction of any usefull books or data as I would like to learn more about the whole Bosch ecu programming subject. My background is in elctronics servicing (many moons ago though) so I at least have some very basic grounding although i'm very rusty. I also have motor vehicle qualifications to help marry up the two.

SimonExtreme

Kirk

Very good point. Not only is it not their market, it is exactly what you do not want if you are a car manufacturer. No manufacturer would buy an engine management system that could easily be remappped. Imagine the warranty issues.

While there is truth in that, I would hope to be able to come to a deal with Colin that woudl protect his interests and mine. Having said that, for any given combination of componenents, a good mapper should be able to get similar results to another good mapper. What is normally the value is the starting map. There are 3 reasons I don't do this myself. First is time! Second is that I don't think Colin will sell me some of the key components that seem to make a big difference (intake), loom etc and third, is having a decent starting map. Now, I could spend ages trying to wire in a programmable ECU or get somebody else to do so but even then, it needs data. You don't juts but it, wire it in and the engine starts. It's like a computer with just the OS in place. Colin will have a map that is already 95% there which can be flashed onto the ECU and the car will start and run safely (or at least I hope he does )

And while you can protect the code, there are ways around that as Mitsubishi found out when they used Motec on their Evo FQ400. They thought they would be clever and lock the code and it was nearly 3 months before somebody bothered to crack it so they could remap.

JasonAndreas

Bosch has a collection called The Program and the book "M-Motronic Engine Management", Bosch part #1-987-722-161 matches the closest to what I've found disassembling with IdaPro. There is also "Bosch Fuel Injection & Engine Management" by Charles O. Probst which is a nice overview but not as accurate.

NineMeister

In the end it all comes down to trust. Do you trust someone like Loren who comes along every once in a while, rattles a few cages, spins other peoples comments and then offers absolutely no evidence or data whatsoever to back up his arguments; or do you trust others who are genuinely passionate about the model in question, who have worked on the engine for years and who freely volunteer information and results to back up their claims?

With respect to the Motronic tuning, I tested the N-GT on our dyno and it made as much power as any other 964RS with Motronic & standard intake that we have tested. I do not know who mapped the car, but I do know that we have never managed to exceed this performance with any remapped 964RS. As far as I am concerned the curve is "as good as it gets" for a remapped 964RS engine with stock air intake and stock injectors.

Similarly with Simon's 964RS on a hot film system. I believe that this is an UK AMD conversion which would have the origins of the programming done by Geoff, who has now left AMD, moved to Canada and posts on Rennlist as Red Rooster. Geoff knows what he is doing and was well respected in the UK. Interestingly on the day I tested Simon's car I also tested another RS with the same system, the graphs were practically identical although Simon's car made 1-2hp more at the top end. I am happy that these 2 cars represent "as good as it gets" for a 964RS on a Mass Air Flow package with exhaust mods.

Finally, if you accept that these tests are valid and representative of typical results with the Motronic system, we then come on to the question of the Motec results. Now, keep in mind that it took me around 15 hours to do these tests for my own benefit and at my own cost, and if there is one thing that I learned whilst doing a mechanical engineering degree it was to ensure that spurious variables are eliminated to make sure the results are accurate. The best example I can give you for this is cylinder head temperature: the 964 engine can make up to 10hp more when tested with "cold" cylinder heads. On the road the average head temp in the UK varies from 100C at idle to 130C on cruise, whereas on track it is usually around 150C. For all the tests on Motec I made sure that the first power run started at 110C and for the second run it increased to 125C. Other variables like air pressure and temperature are corrected in the dyno software from its weather station, but testing on the same day largely eliminated these from consideration. The car ran the same fuel throughout the test, the same tyres at the same pressure, the same anchor straps and the same driver. I don't think I missed anything, do you?


I am totally happy that I have covered every base, so can I suggest that instead of asking me why the 9m Motec conversion makes more power than Motronic under controlled test conditions, why not just ask all the Motronic experts out there why they are underachieving by not getting 339bhp at the flywheel from their remapped 964RS engines?

Shall we just wait now until we get a stampede of dyno curves flooding in from all quarters?

NineMeister

Just fitted TPC's new Unichip version to a customer's 993C2S. It made 352bhp. However there is a hole in the torque curve at 4000rpm and we cannot get the software to remap the Unichip. Customer livid, so we got onto TPC. They are contracted not to farm out the mapping software, Unichip UK don't have this ecu available and cannot supply the software, Unichip head office in south Africa will not talk to me, so me not happy. If you genuinely want a blower you best start putting pressure on TPC/Unichip because I have got nowhere and the system is currently unsupportable outside of Washington State.

Laurence Gibbs

Thanks Jason, I already have the probst book and i will order the other one.

SimonExtreme

Colin

With respect, that last comment totally clouds the issue. You know and I know it cannot be done! Don't fall to Loren's level I think the levels achieved by people like Red Rooster (if you mapped my car originally, thanks!!!) are pretty spectacular if the have managed to get the Motronics to what we know to be the limit of the standard equipment. In addition, I would recommend live remaps done by the right companies to anybody as a great way of squeezing more out of their car. Even if you take out the hot film and throttle body mods, you are probably looking at 30bhp more for about £900. For most, that level of power is more than enough and I think that community are well served.

It's just a few of us nutters who think that their cars should have a little more power