TR6

John, Derek, thanks for a valuable set of test data. This is how it should be done. Hats off to you guys. If other people want to debate real world value of the mod, that's a different discussion, but the numbers shown are the numbers. Its hard to argue with the test results. No negatives here as far as I'm concerned.

N51

John,

On the 964 forum, there are three present tuners: Geoff, Geoffrey, and Colin.
I like them all, and have had disagreement with them all. Yet, I appreciate their presence. All to my benefit. It is such fun!

I will post as I wish.

mjshira

I personally have been really disappointed in the tone that some have taken towards John. All you have to do is not buy the product and leave the matter there. But, and it is just my theory here, it seems some enjoy getting others upset all from behind a keyboard, very brave huh?

This forum is a blessing to our little community, let's respect it by respecting each other...

mjshira

that is a very mature approach Noah...

deoxford

Yes it is a smooth quick throttle response,
I am coming from a early MFI car , and till now I missed the throttle response from my 72 911T. This new set up puts a smile on my face every time I take it out.

Here is my 72
http://www.356-911.com/911restogalle...koxford911.htm

MassGuy

Noah you come off like a real GOON.

38D

I think the point Noah was making is that we now have some data that shows the MAF kit (which includes a new chip) gained +19rwhp and +14rwhp tq. The issue is, how much would just the chip gain, and would the gains also be across the mid range as well?

David K.

A 964 with a cat by-pass runnig a stock chip would be lean. Did the runs without the MAF use a shock chip?

deep_uv

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the OP, it appears the stock chip was used in the before numbers. Not to sound ungrateful, but as Colin (38D) said, it would've been really interesting if a comparison of various performance chips had been done as well to see if there was a signifcant difference between chip only vs. chip and MAF (assuming a given exhaust setup). Still, I appreciate the info and appreciate the time and effort you guys put into it. I know it's not free to do this.

Regards,

slammed1000

subscibed

fast951

Thank you for the kind words.

The test was to show the before and after with the MAF kit. The dyno chart shows it!
The goal of the test and this thread is to test the MAF, not to test how the 964 performs with any other modification. As someone else mentioned it, it costs time and money to do this, dyno testing is not free!

We are the only company to offer true Air Mass (MAF) conversion. Our MAF kit offers the following features, it is not limited to performance gains:
- True Air Mass handling (not a signal massager to change the MAF signal to like like AFM to the DME)
- Supports large injectors (healthy 3.6L, 3.8L and turbo all could use larger injectors).
- Supports LWF.
- Crisp response.
- Of course the performance gains, which started this thread.
- The ability to provide you with multiple images on the same chip/board (a few plan to upgrade to a LWF or larger injectors or??, they get various images, just select the appropriate image when needed)

If you want additional flexibility, we offer the PiggyBack which gives you control over fuel and ignition.

fast951

Actually this is not what he was saying. However you bring up a good point! There are many vendors offering chips, din't they provide dyno runs showing the before and after? I am not selling a chip by itself, why would I spend the money and time to test something that isn't mine?

Red rooster

The power/torque from a 964 motor depends on a few factors .

The correct set of chip timing/fuelling maps modified and decent fuel octane is an important one .

Different parts of the world have different fuel octane available at the pump so the power output will vary with where you live !

The standard seconary silencer is a power looser .

A decent MAF used to provide airflow data to the DME results in some power gain .

A quick look at the Non Vario 993 will show 272 claimed as opposed to the 964 250 . Apply 993 thinking to a 964 and 272 will pop out !!

Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
KS400200,the oldest 964 on Rennlist,unless you know differently !

fast951

Thank you! I couldn't have said it any better.

mjshira

everyone seems to be missing the point here, the power across the RPM range, power that can be used! A chip can't give you that. Look at the dyno chart, you'll notice the even (and safe from an AFR stand point) power curve. John's kit, especially if you add the piggy-back, allows you to balance out the external and internal (cams) performance changes you make to your car. Using this kit you can adjust the fuel and timing so that you can get the max safe benefit of these updates. Assuming a decent bonus this year, I am in for getting this JUST to balance my engine. I've got sport grind cams, BandB headers with dual exit exhaust, no airbox and a stock chip. I've replaced all the external parts (AFM, ICV, etc) and I've still not got the engine 'right'. This kit is a great option between a performance chip and going all the way to motec. I appreciate John making the effort to bring it to market.