NineMeister

Don't remember that thread, I'll have to do a search.

That said, I do remember one where I posted 9m 964 Motec conversion results, corrected to DIN standards, that showed a 25 to 30hp increase over any equivalent Motronic remap/MAF conversion, maybe that one passed you by?

Given the level of interest on Rennlist for making the 964 faster, maybe you are the one that needs to "get a life" Loren? Have you ever tried posting a non-confrontational reply? You are obviously an intelligent bloke, so why do you insist on winding everyone up when all they are trying to do is enjoy one of their passions with like-minded fellow enthusiasts?


Derek, if this MAF worked for you then great, thanks for letting us know. If it also results in more sales for Vitesse and more happy customers then good for them as well.

Millemiglia

A good reminder of why Lorenfb is on my ignore list....

TR6

Very impressive numbers. We can debate what specifically contributed to those numbers all day long, but the numbers are there nonetheless. If some portion of it is from advancing the timing, then fine. As long as the engine isn't pinging/knocking and you have access to the quality of fuel required, what's wrong with pushing the timing a bit to get a little more power? That is an old hotrod tuner's technique from the days of carburetors and pushrods. Granted, there is always some margin of error from one dyno to another. If you dynoed the same configuration on a different dyno, it might read lower or higher. Even the same dyno on different days with different ambient temperature and humidity would come out differently. But at some point you have to put the stake in the ground and call those the numbers....I don't ignore him. I welcome open debate from intelligent people even if opinions differ, provided that everyone keep it from getting personal. I don't think Loren has attacked anyone personally. He just aggressively challenges our assumptions with a healthy dose of cynicism. Keeps us honest and on our toes...

Lorenfb

"I do remember one where I posted 9m 964 Motec conversion results, corrected to DIN standards, that showed a 25 to 30hp increase over any equivalent Motronic remap/MAF conversion,"

Let's try and remember more clearly for those that may have missed that
thread where the final outcome via MANY posts concluded that the Motec
system IN ITSELF does not increase performance over a Motronic system,
i.e. given the same STOCK setup.

For those that are interested in improving their 964 overall driving experience,
a suspension improvement combined with a few DE track days probably will
result in a better cost benefit ratio than so-called performance mods.

boxsey911

Derek, I've converted the chart to a JPEG for you so that it can be seen in the thread, as long as that's OK with you?

Dynochart for Deoxford's 964 (modifications as described in this thread):

TR6

I absolutely agree with this statement. Having done about 20 track days so far and still what I would consider a track novice, a 964 with the stock 250 horsepower is still more car than most of us are capable of really handling in terms of skill level. In other words, I've decided that I'd rather invest money in buying track time for the immediate future than chasing that last 20 horsepower. Of course, easy for me to say since I am getting my engine rebuilt right now. But I had no choice on that "mod" since it shelled a rod bearing....


But this isn't what the topic of this thread was about. I think there are a number of folks out there that want to be able to put the hammer down at the stoplight and keep up with a 996, etc. They may never take their 964 on a race track. And that's cool too. Just depends on how they want to enjoy their car.

deoxford

Greg,
You are right track time will prove it, and like your self I am sure I have over 20 days on the tracks here in the area. One thing about this car I love is the fact that much like my early car I can still out brake and corner must of the newer cars . But on the long straight at RA, I was still getting past by the high hp cars ( new M3's , 996, older turbos)
My last event with the old chip, I was doing much better to keep up with some of them , and really leaving them in the turns.

So i can't wait till the Jan DE, to see what will happen. The WOT now feels more smooth and powerful then before . When before I had a small "lag" at WOT till about 4k now it is smooth all the way though.

I have video of my last event , if some one can help me post it, and I will tape the next event as I do all of them .We maybe able to see some improvement there too.

Ritter v4.0

I'm sure most would agree; suspension and track time first, hp to follow. Thats the context of this discussion for me.

Greg- we may have some/much of these gains already from cat and primary delete and Wong chip. Of course the MAF could add further but its diminishing returns with the 3.6. That said, who's to say it wrong to pay $X for Y HP increase except the guy writing the cheque.

madmoog

If A and B do essentially the same thing (and are interchangeable) and are swapped and nothing else changes, then we could assume that the net effect may be minimal. If however B, through superior design (read more modern or whatever you like) allows the existing system to be better utilised/optimised by further alterations to C that A wouldn’t support, is that not something that can, in part, be attributed back to having B in the system. Not a direct result of B, but a nevertheless an improvement that may not have been possible if A remained and however well C worked.

So what’s the problem, if replacing something in the system that allows something else to work better and the net result is a power increase, great.

Answers on a post card as to what A, B and C are? Similarly, if I’ve misunderstood what’s going on here, I’ll hear about that too

Some may need more power, some may need more skill, some both, I know that’s what I crave, so lets all chase what makes us happy.

Sire

Oke here is an update of the dyno, Idont got an scanner, but here are the numbers, I wil ask mine brother inlaw to scan this to show you it al.

The Numbers are after 4 runs:
Corrected HP 277,8
Engine P. HP 282,2
Wheel P. HP 218,1

Max Power at 6180 rpm
Max Torque at 4935 rpm 346,3

Correction acc. to DIN 70020

Hope this is enough information for now in a week or 2 there wil be an update.

Oh the mods, LFW, cup pipe, cat.

NineMeister

.. which is the same reasoning as why a 911 2.7 running on 185/70 rear tyres goes no faster when you fit a 3.6 turbo engine. Very good Loren, you're a genius. I suppose the next deduction will be that the MAF in itself will not make any more power if it has to draw air through the square hole of the standard airbox?

NineMeister

He he, the last time I did that I got slapped first and threatened with divorce second, so I now chase the other things that make me slightly less happy.
More power anyone?

demonfish

Loren Its not all about the numbers.

A friend of mine has a 650bhp skyline, and i'll kill him thru country lanes with my meager what, 250bhp?

Its how it drives...

A friend of mine has a motec fitted to his 1.4 turbo italian shopping trolley. its been very very modified, and its done 150k miles, which i'm sure without a motec and good mapping it wouldn't have done.

I've never had a motec, i'd love to get one, it may not make much difference to the figures on paper, but it'll be a whole lot better on the road i'm sure. If only I had the money to visit Colin.

Whats seagull (stewart h on here?) got on his RS - IIRC he is just over the 300bhp mark?

pat056

I'm glad Leren made his comments. That's why I love rennlist. People aren't afraid to voice their opinion. Therefore, I'll give you mine:
I'm a scientist by education. I'm been taught to decrease variables to one and run a control. That means; dyno whatcha got, make one change at a time, and dyno after each change. If you do that, your results are virtually indisputable! If not, you get a 5 page (up to now) thread.
I quickly got caught up in this thread, then Loren gave his dissenting voice of reason. Is he right? I don't know, not enough evidence to do anything but guess. I hope it works! I need 30-50 more HP or 100 less pounds to kick a** in my respective race classes.
So please, keep debating. And when someone really wants to end this, dyno before and after!!!

TR6

I was also thinking also that a MAF upgrade may be diminishing marginal returns for my car. My car dynoed at 270 calculated at the crank (assuming 15% loss). And that was on a 99 degree F day with the engine lid closed and with not enough airflow. Oh, and I found out later, my spark plug wires were arcing! Once I get my engine rebuild finished and broken in, I plan to dyno it again and see what a new engine adds to that figure. Hopefully another 10 or so. Maybe not. We'll see. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have 300hp at the crank. But like most of us, I have a long list of things I need/want to pay for related to the car and to gain that last incremental 20 hp is not as important to me as, say, adding safety equipment for track days (harnesses, hans, proper seats, roll bar, etc).
I absolutely agree!