Vitesse MAF kit - Dyno results, before and after
12-29-2007, 12:54 PM
#31
"Pushed timing"
Noah said it right on! The dyno run as performed really proves
nothing with regard to the benefit of the MAF. It's great for a proof to the naive ones.
As mentioned on the other thread, one needs to control for the other
variable of pushed timing which is apparent from the dyno graph.
Bottom line: A real joke!!!!!!!!! But the naive ones will suck it up .
Noah said it right on! The dyno run as performed really proves
nothing with regard to the benefit of the MAF. It's great for a proof to the naive ones.
As mentioned on the other thread, one needs to control for the other
variable of pushed timing which is apparent from the dyno graph.
Bottom line: A real joke!!!!!!!!! But the naive ones will suck it up .
12-29-2007, 01:30 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
can't you make a point without being insulting?
timing may be advance and retarded at certain points to even out the AFR across the RPM range. That is the difference between this approach and just a chip. None of us claimed that timing was not advanced Loren. And, none us made insults against those who have a different view. As a customer of yours, I'd appreciate it if you just made your point without insulting others, what value does an insult add to your posts? All it does is debase the discussion.
timing may be advance and retarded at certain points to even out the AFR across the RPM range. That is the difference between this approach and just a chip. None of us claimed that timing was not advanced Loren. And, none us made insults against those who have a different view. As a customer of yours, I'd appreciate it if you just made your point without insulting others, what value does an insult add to your posts? All it does is debase the discussion.
12-29-2007, 02:00 PM
#33
Best regards,
12-29-2007, 02:47 PM
#34
Pro
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loren , Noah...
I am trying to understand why now I am being call naive ? As a customer of Vitesse I am now naive because I purchased this product , why is that? I make alot of purchases, some much more then this., Should I be consulting you for these purchase because I am naive?
So is that what you are offering here consulting services ?
What is you point of pointing out what you believe to be flaws in this product?
Is it to help and fellow Rennlister?
If so can you please explain your issues , so us naive people can better understand your points and reasons for this.
Please be clear in your explanation .
If not you just appear to be insulting and slanderous.
I don't see a product like it for sale on your site , so I don't believe it is completive pressure.
So my question to you as a naive customer , what is your point and purpose , what is your goal here ?
Please help me understand why your are trying to make me look like a fool.
Thank You
I am trying to understand why now I am being call naive ? As a customer of Vitesse I am now naive because I purchased this product , why is that? I make alot of purchases, some much more then this., Should I be consulting you for these purchase because I am naive?
So is that what you are offering here consulting services ?
What is you point of pointing out what you believe to be flaws in this product?
Is it to help and fellow Rennlister?
If so can you please explain your issues , so us naive people can better understand your points and reasons for this.
Please be clear in your explanation .
If not you just appear to be insulting and slanderous.
I don't see a product like it for sale on your site , so I don't believe it is completive pressure.
So my question to you as a naive customer , what is your point and purpose , what is your goal here ?
Please help me understand why your are trying to make me look like a fool.
Thank You
Last edited by deoxford; 12-29-2007 at 03:03 PM.
12-29-2007, 04:40 PM
#35
Drifting
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas/FortWorth Texas
Posts: 3,438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just another data point, for what its worth... I saw a 19 hp gain just from the aftermarket chip that I installed (which I assume makes most of its gains from pushing the timing). See this thread for dyno results.
As a side note, I swapped back to my stock chip yesterday from the aftermarket chip that tested +19 hp more over stock chip, and I couldn't feel any obvious difference in power on the street between the two chips. I guess my point is that in everyday use, I don't think that most people really feel 19 hp difference on a 250 - 270 hp car. On the track when you are passing another car down a long straight, the difference is probably just enough edge to get you out in front. My opinion only, for what its worth. And again, I'm not talking specifically about the MAF mod, just relating what 19 hp difference feels like in general to me.
As a side note, I swapped back to my stock chip yesterday from the aftermarket chip that tested +19 hp more over stock chip, and I couldn't feel any obvious difference in power on the street between the two chips. I guess my point is that in everyday use, I don't think that most people really feel 19 hp difference on a 250 - 270 hp car. On the track when you are passing another car down a long straight, the difference is probably just enough edge to get you out in front. My opinion only, for what its worth. And again, I'm not talking specifically about the MAF mod, just relating what 19 hp difference feels like in general to me.
12-29-2007, 06:54 PM
#36
"I don't think that most people really feel 19 hp difference on a 250 - 270 hp car."
Totally agree! And the increase is much less in the normal driving range, i.e. << 5000 RPMs.
Furthermore, one doesn't always have to worry about finding the max. octane
when running stock.
Totally agree! And the increase is much less in the normal driving range, i.e. << 5000 RPMs.
Furthermore, one doesn't always have to worry about finding the max. octane
when running stock.
12-29-2007, 06:59 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: behind the Corn Curtain
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek,
In the past, I've stated my sincere appreciation for all that you've endured with the prior problems of your 964. With our mutual respect for the 964, it has been mutually rewarding. I like your terrior-like tenacity.
As to slander; nothing I've written here applies, and if it did, it would be considered libel.
It will be interesting to see how your 964 performs on the track in warm weather and pushed timing.
Best,
In the past, I've stated my sincere appreciation for all that you've endured with the prior problems of your 964. With our mutual respect for the 964, it has been mutually rewarding. I like your terrior-like tenacity.
As to slander; nothing I've written here applies, and if it did, it would be considered libel.
It will be interesting to see how your 964 performs on the track in warm weather and pushed timing.
Best,
12-29-2007, 07:04 PM
#38
Nordschleife Master
Derek, let me try. I think the issue comes down to what benefit comes from the MAF vs what come from the chip. If the benefit is that the MAF supports larger injectors & a LWFW, that's great. But the dyno chart posted only shows the benefit on a stock engine. In order to verify this, you'd take a car with the larger injectors & an aftermarket chip to the dyno and do a before and after vs. this MAF kit. If is made more area under the curve, that would prove it is better and more flexible at enabling future mods.
I'm not saying this is a bad product, cause I have no idea if it is or isn't. What I do know, is that the data posted does not show conclusively why this kit is worth $1000 more than just a chip. If the MAF kit does make more area under the curve, that would be a benefit for sure. If anyone had before and after of the Steve Wong chip (or other popular ones), that could help to prove/disprove the area under the cruve part of the equation.
I'm not saying this is a bad product, cause I have no idea if it is or isn't. What I do know, is that the data posted does not show conclusively why this kit is worth $1000 more than just a chip. If the MAF kit does make more area under the curve, that would be a benefit for sure. If anyone had before and after of the Steve Wong chip (or other popular ones), that could help to prove/disprove the area under the cruve part of the equation.
12-29-2007, 07:10 PM
#39
Nordschleife Master
I promised myself I would stay out of this thread...
Altering ignition timing will not alter the AFR a material amount.
First, 19hp at the wheels is about 22hp at the flywheel if the dyno numbers are accurate. This is the difference between say a 944S2 and a 968, a 2.5 Boxster and a 2.7 Boxster, a 911SC and a 3.2 Carrera, a 964 and a 95 993, the list goes on. I know from personal experience, that I can tell a difference between the two cars, stock for stock. I also know that you can feel the difference of 10-15hp on any given car.
What John has done is effectively the difference between a 964 engine running older Motronics and and AFM for metering fuel, and a 95 993 using MAF for metering fuel. It should not be that unbelieveable that someone could engineer better airflow through the engine and optimized ignition timing.
I read in the other thread where people have said that the AFM is not a restriction any more than a MAF unit is. I can tell you for a fact that the AFM is a restriction in the inlet system. I have had it on a flow bench which measures airflow in CFM. Worse is that the AFM creates turbluance in the airstream due to its irregular shape. This is not fiction but FACT. Further, the MAF unit has far less air restriction because it is almost an open circular diameter with only a screen and a sensor in the air stream. MAF is not free, it does have a very slight restriction.
Why is everyone concerned with optimizing timing (pushed timing as you people call it) on a particular engine like it is a bad thing? Optimized timing is a good thing, it allows the engine to run at its maximum efficiency...and YES, you will gain in performance with an engine with optimized ignition timing. Every car I tune with MoTeC has optimized timing under all running conditions and I have yet to have one single engine failure outside of a supercharged experiment that went wrong (for a variety of reasons).
I don't know John, have never purchased anything from him, don't know what dyno he used, what testing methods he used, never spoken with him and have no interest in the products that he sell. It has been my experience that a chip can provide about 8-10rwhp when compared back-to-back on a stock engine.
Further, I don't think it is John's responsibility to prove or disprove all of the options you, the informed customer, are intersted in. John, or anyone else for that matter is offering a product for sale and has established, on a factual basis what his product can do against some benchmark that he has chosen. He should not be derided because he hasn't invested his time or money testing every combination and permeatation that is out there to see where his product stands against the other. Perhaps someone should call consumer reports to do a test on all of the bolt on performance products for the 964. I think you all have unfair expectations.
timing may be advance and retarded at certain points to even out the AFR
I don't think that most people really feel 19 hp difference on a 250 - 270 hp car.
What John has done is effectively the difference between a 964 engine running older Motronics and and AFM for metering fuel, and a 95 993 using MAF for metering fuel. It should not be that unbelieveable that someone could engineer better airflow through the engine and optimized ignition timing.
I read in the other thread where people have said that the AFM is not a restriction any more than a MAF unit is. I can tell you for a fact that the AFM is a restriction in the inlet system. I have had it on a flow bench which measures airflow in CFM. Worse is that the AFM creates turbluance in the airstream due to its irregular shape. This is not fiction but FACT. Further, the MAF unit has far less air restriction because it is almost an open circular diameter with only a screen and a sensor in the air stream. MAF is not free, it does have a very slight restriction.
Why is everyone concerned with optimizing timing (pushed timing as you people call it) on a particular engine like it is a bad thing? Optimized timing is a good thing, it allows the engine to run at its maximum efficiency...and YES, you will gain in performance with an engine with optimized ignition timing. Every car I tune with MoTeC has optimized timing under all running conditions and I have yet to have one single engine failure outside of a supercharged experiment that went wrong (for a variety of reasons).
I don't know John, have never purchased anything from him, don't know what dyno he used, what testing methods he used, never spoken with him and have no interest in the products that he sell. It has been my experience that a chip can provide about 8-10rwhp when compared back-to-back on a stock engine.
Further, I don't think it is John's responsibility to prove or disprove all of the options you, the informed customer, are intersted in. John, or anyone else for that matter is offering a product for sale and has established, on a factual basis what his product can do against some benchmark that he has chosen. He should not be derided because he hasn't invested his time or money testing every combination and permeatation that is out there to see where his product stands against the other. Perhaps someone should call consumer reports to do a test on all of the bolt on performance products for the 964. I think you all have unfair expectations.
Last edited by Geoffrey; 12-29-2007 at 08:45 PM.
12-29-2007, 07:43 PM
#40
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
As I've posted before I had a MAF kit fitted to my 964 and that various dynos gave approx 300hp corrected. The MAK kit involved a custom rechip.
At one instance the kit developed a fault and the MAF was replaced with the original AFM leaving the custom chip in situ. The car was slower and this was measurable.
As far as not being able to detect 20hp sorry but I can certainly tell the difference. When the resonance flap was failing to open I noticed the power drop and had the car in for investigation and the difference between the MAF kit and stock, and stock and the rechip is obvious and measurable on the road and track.
At one instance the kit developed a fault and the MAF was replaced with the original AFM leaving the custom chip in situ. The car was slower and this was measurable.
As far as not being able to detect 20hp sorry but I can certainly tell the difference. When the resonance flap was failing to open I noticed the power drop and had the car in for investigation and the difference between the MAF kit and stock, and stock and the rechip is obvious and measurable on the road and track.
12-29-2007, 09:35 PM
#41
Pro
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek,
In the past, I've stated my sincere appreciation for all that you've endured with the prior problems of your 964. With our mutual respect for the 964, it has been mutually rewarding. I like your terrior-like tenacity.
As to slander; nothing I've written here applies, and if it did, it would be considered libel.
It will be interesting to see how your 964 performs on the track in warm weather and pushed timing.
Best,
In the past, I've stated my sincere appreciation for all that you've endured with the prior problems of your 964. With our mutual respect for the 964, it has been mutually rewarding. I like your terrior-like tenacity.
As to slander; nothing I've written here applies, and if it did, it would be considered libel.
It will be interesting to see how your 964 performs on the track in warm weather and pushed timing.
Best,
That was really written for Loren , who has not answered my question yet.
I respect all the help and knowledge I can gain and later give on this board.
I DO NOT RESPECT THE INSULTS THOUGH!
Loren,
Please tell me why I am naive and I need to get a life . You know I have already bought this part so it must be pointed to me.
As I asked before what is your goal in slamming this part and me?
If it is to help please explain ,
If not ,it is just insulting right... Please explain all you claims so the naive can become less naive.
12-29-2007, 10:16 PM
#42
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: behind the Corn Curtain
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek,
In the mish/mash of it all, proceed to have fun. To you, John, and others, we agree and disagree. It will continue on.
We express our passion, and in it, comes forth the differences. Be easy in all of it.
Were we all to meet together, I'm sure that the differences would subside, and our mutual agreements would abide.
Best,
In the mish/mash of it all, proceed to have fun. To you, John, and others, we agree and disagree. It will continue on.
We express our passion, and in it, comes forth the differences. Be easy in all of it.
Were we all to meet together, I'm sure that the differences would subside, and our mutual agreements would abide.
Best,
12-29-2007, 10:54 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
I promised myself I would stay out of this thread...
Altering ignition timing will not alter the AFR a material amount.
First, 19hp at the wheels is about 22hp at the flywheel if the dyno numbers are accurate. This is the difference between say a 944S2 and a 968, a 2.5 Boxster and a 2.7 Boxster, a 911SC and a 3.2 Carrera, a 964 and a 95 993, the list goes on. I know from personal experience, that I can tell a difference between the two cars, stock for stock. I also know that you can feel the difference of 10-15hp on any given car.
What John has done is effectively the difference between a 964 engine running older Motronics and and AFM for metering fuel, and a 95 993 using MAF for metering fuel. It should not be that unbelieveable that someone could engineer better airflow through the engine and optimized ignition timing.
I read in the other thread where people have said that the AFM is not a restriction any more than a MAF unit is. I can tell you for a fact that the AFM is a restriction in the inlet system. I have had it on a flow bench which measures airflow in CFM. Worse is that the AFM creates turbluance in the airstream due to its irregular shape. This is not fiction but FACT. Further, the MAF unit has far less air restriction because it is almost an open circular diameter with only a screen and a sensor in the air stream. MAF is not free, it does have a very slight restriction.
Why is everyone concerned with optimizing timing (pushed timing as you people call it) on a particular engine like it is a bad thing? Optimized timing is a good thing, it allows the engine to run at its maximum efficiency...and YES, you will gain in performance with an engine with optimized ignition timing. Every car I tune with MoTeC has optimized timing under all running conditions and I have yet to have one single engine failure outside of a supercharged experiment that went wrong (for a variety of reasons).
I don't know John, have never purchased anything from him, don't know what dyno he used, what testing methods he used, never spoken with him and have no interest in the products that he sell. It has been my experience that a chip can provide about 8-10rwhp when compared back-to-back on a stock engine.
Further, I don't think it is John's responsibility to prove or disprove all of the options you, the informed customer, are intersted in. John, or anyone else for that matter is offering a product for sale and has established, on a factual basis what his product can do against some benchmark that he has chosen. He should not be derided because he hasn't invested his time or money testing every combination and permeatation that is out there to see where his product stands against the other. Perhaps someone should call consumer reports to do a test on all of the bolt on performance products for the 964. I think you all have unfair expectations.
Altering ignition timing will not alter the AFR a material amount.
First, 19hp at the wheels is about 22hp at the flywheel if the dyno numbers are accurate. This is the difference between say a 944S2 and a 968, a 2.5 Boxster and a 2.7 Boxster, a 911SC and a 3.2 Carrera, a 964 and a 95 993, the list goes on. I know from personal experience, that I can tell a difference between the two cars, stock for stock. I also know that you can feel the difference of 10-15hp on any given car.
What John has done is effectively the difference between a 964 engine running older Motronics and and AFM for metering fuel, and a 95 993 using MAF for metering fuel. It should not be that unbelieveable that someone could engineer better airflow through the engine and optimized ignition timing.
I read in the other thread where people have said that the AFM is not a restriction any more than a MAF unit is. I can tell you for a fact that the AFM is a restriction in the inlet system. I have had it on a flow bench which measures airflow in CFM. Worse is that the AFM creates turbluance in the airstream due to its irregular shape. This is not fiction but FACT. Further, the MAF unit has far less air restriction because it is almost an open circular diameter with only a screen and a sensor in the air stream. MAF is not free, it does have a very slight restriction.
Why is everyone concerned with optimizing timing (pushed timing as you people call it) on a particular engine like it is a bad thing? Optimized timing is a good thing, it allows the engine to run at its maximum efficiency...and YES, you will gain in performance with an engine with optimized ignition timing. Every car I tune with MoTeC has optimized timing under all running conditions and I have yet to have one single engine failure outside of a supercharged experiment that went wrong (for a variety of reasons).
I don't know John, have never purchased anything from him, don't know what dyno he used, what testing methods he used, never spoken with him and have no interest in the products that he sell. It has been my experience that a chip can provide about 8-10rwhp when compared back-to-back on a stock engine.
Further, I don't think it is John's responsibility to prove or disprove all of the options you, the informed customer, are intersted in. John, or anyone else for that matter is offering a product for sale and has established, on a factual basis what his product can do against some benchmark that he has chosen. He should not be derided because he hasn't invested his time or money testing every combination and permeatation that is out there to see where his product stands against the other. Perhaps someone should call consumer reports to do a test on all of the bolt on performance products for the 964. I think you all have unfair expectations.
This validates what I've been trying to say, if I've used incorrect language I confess, I am not a wrench, just a wanna-be who is not afraid to try to do his own work.
I think the other element to John's product is the piggy-back which allows a custom tune.
As for the insults, they are what they are. We don't need to 'go there' to make our respective views clear. We all share a love for these cars, that should result in some basic level of respectful treatment of each other. There will always be someone who knows more, etc.
12-30-2007, 01:22 AM
#45
Peace brothers. Happy New Year. 
I sincerely hope none of my comments were taken as deriding John or Derek as I surely didn't intend that. I think it's great they've done the work they've done and provided the data they've provided. I don't expect John to prove out all the possibilities.
I can't help it, I ask questions.
I sincerely hope none of my comments were taken as deriding John or Derek as I surely didn't intend that. I think it's great they've done the work they've done and provided the data they've provided. I don't expect John to prove out all the possibilities.
I can't help it, I ask questions.