MAF ; Great 964 Upgrade ! In the TOP 5 ? - Page 5 - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

Notices
964 Forum
Sponsored By:
Sponsored By:

MAF ; Great 964 Upgrade ! In the TOP 5 ?

 
Old 12-06-2007, 11:15 AM
  #61  
NineMeister
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
NineMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 4,344
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb View Post
This thread kinda reminds you of the thread a year or so ago where some
super-promo-hype guys were selling the idea of riping-off the Bosch Motronic
system and replacing it with a Motec system on a stock engine. When the
dyno data were finally revealed and one normalized that data for just the
Motec mod, little to no real benefit resulted.

Once that failed, they focused on promoting a redesigned 964 motor for
super big bucks, please! The 964 is a 15+ year old car, leave well enough
alone and get a life.
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.
NineMeister is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:16 AM
  #62  
Millemiglia
User
 
Millemiglia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 432
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by deoxford View Post
Loren,
I really don't know what you are talking about or your what your hostilely toward me is from.
I don't believe there is a reason to be disrespectful, and tell me to get a life...what is that about?
A good reminder of why Lorenfb is on my ignore list....

Millemiglia is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:41 AM
  #63  
TR6
Super User
 
TR6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas/FortWorth Texas
Posts: 3,438
Default

Originally Posted by deoxford View Post
Here are the results from the first sets of Dyno runs, the number is there.
sorry I keep trying to attach it so you can just see it in the body of this message but it will not work



Really the only thing that it will prove when I take the stuff off, is the total gain. But the car does make it now.
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....
Originally Posted by Millemiglia View Post
A good reminder of why Lorenfb is on my ignore list....
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...
TR6 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:53 AM
  #64  
Lorenfb
Super User
 
Lorenfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,491
Default

"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.
Lorenfb is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 12:16 PM
  #65  
boxsey911
Super User
 
boxsey911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 5,096
Default

Originally Posted by deoxford View Post
Here are the results from the first sets of Dyno runs, the number is there.
sorry I keep trying to attach it so you can just see it in the body of this message but it will not work
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):

boxsey911 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 12:16 PM
  #66  
TR6
Super User
 
TR6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas/FortWorth Texas
Posts: 3,438
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb View Post
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.
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.
TR6 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 12:28 PM
  #67  
deoxford
User
Thread Starter
 
deoxford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 500
Default

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.
deoxford is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 12:29 PM
  #68  
Ritter v4.0
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Ritter v4.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nassau, Bahamas and Duluth, Ga.
Posts: 4,080
Default

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.
Ritter v4.0 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 01:11 PM
  #69  
madmoog
User
 
madmoog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bedfordshire UK
Posts: 310
Default

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 wouldnít 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 whatís 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 Iíve misunderstood whatís going on here, Iíll hear about that too

Some may need more power, some may need more skill, some both, I know thatís what I crave, so lets all chase what makes us happy.
madmoog is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 01:17 PM
  #70  
Sire
User
 
Sire's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Netherlands/ The Hague
Posts: 297
Default

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.
Sire is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 01:25 PM
  #71  
NineMeister
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
NineMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 4,344
Default

Originally Posted by Lorenfb View Post
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.
.. 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 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 01:29 PM
  #72  
NineMeister
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor

 
NineMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 4,344
Default

Originally Posted by madmoog View Post
Some may need more power, some may need more skill, some both, I know thatís what I crave, so lets all chase what makes us happy.
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?
NineMeister is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 01:36 PM
  #73  
demonfish
User
 
demonfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Birmingham, UK.
Posts: 963
Default

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?
demonfish is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 03:44 PM
  #74  
pat056
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
pat056's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Society Hill, SC
Posts: 1,702
Default

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!!!
pat056 is offline  
Old 12-06-2007, 03:48 PM
  #75  
TR6
Super User
 
TR6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas/FortWorth Texas
Posts: 3,438
Default

Originally Posted by Ritter View Post
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.
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).
Originally Posted by Ritter View Post
That said, who's to say it wrong to pay $X for Y HP increase except the guy writing the cheque.
I absolutely agree!
TR6 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: MAF ; Great 964 Upgrade ! In the TOP 5 ?


Contact Us About Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: