N51

A successful bluff relies on everyone else folding. John folded, as expected.

Yet, I've interest in his work. His claim of being able to write to code can be a real asset to our cars. While I find disagreement with him in the prior thread, there is something of his work that goes beyond that.
I'm sorry to all parties that John did not agree with the original proposal, as brought by Springer. Had Springer's car dyno'd high, it would have been a red flag to us all.

springer3

Derek: No disrespect is taken. You have been a gentleman and very positive in all our dealings.

What I am saying is that when test results conflict, there are simple ways to determine where the conflict comes from. Any experiment needs cross-checks even if the results agree with expectations. The the acceleration test can be cross-checked by same-day dyno runs on both cars. I would love it if the acceleration test was proved wrong and we could all get 23 extra safe horsepower for $1500. That is a bargain for an increase that is easy to feel (about the same as removing 300 lb from the car). I would order my MAF, I help report the results on this forum. As it stands now, I cannot resolve the discrepancy between the dyno runs and the dead even acceleration with a "no mods" car.

Possible results of a same-day run on both cars:

1) My "no mods" car has the same power as your "before MAF" run. This would prove that there was something wrong with the acceleration test (unexpectedly large weight or tire difference, perhaps). There would be clear proof that the MAF adds 23 HP over stock, and this issue would be put to bed.

2) My "no mods" car has the same power as your "after" run. This would confirm the acceleration test result. It would also say your "before mods" engine tune has a problem - possibly your exhaust mods are not compatible with the stock DME. That would be valuable information indeed, because bolting up different exhaust parts is popular.

3) Anything different would still leave us scratching our heads, but based on the acceleration test, 1 or 2 should be the outcome.

My opinion is that outcome 2 would confirm what we saw in early December - the MAF mod is a success. Your car runs and sounds great. The MAF duplicates the factory power curve, and you have a tool that lets you tune for bigger injectors or other modifications that can provide real power increase. Obviously outcome 1 is even better because it means there is safe power available even with no additional modifications. I support John's work, and would be delighted with outcome 1.

New offer: I pay for 100% of the dyno rental. You bring your car, I bring mine, invite witnesses, and possibly find another unmodified car to address John's allegation that I drive a modified car. We perform back-to-back dyno runs, changing nothing between runs. I will bring a laptop to record the ignition timing, engine RPM, IAT, CHT and other engine variables during the run. I don't know if the MAF kit talks to the diagnostic port, but we can do the same for your car if it does. After the dyno runs, we touch nothing on either car, and perform some acceleration runs on the road to make sure that test is stable. We agree on what we saw, and report the results to the forum. We agree to let John use the results in his advertising, he will be allowed to say these are independent test results.

Here is the verbatim text of the e-mail I sent John last Wednesday. At the time I was not aware of the date for the dyno test, but I was on record offering to pay for half the dyno rental in exchange for the opportunity to dyno my car and figure out where the truth lay. I was wondering why the other shoe hand not dropped on the Thursday dyno run:

John:

I regret some of the negative turns the MAF thread took. There are still plenty of folks interested, and some have PM'd me to encourage the dyno test proposed by Derek. I have PM'd Derek myself, but he has not confirmed any plans.

It would be a service to the 964 community, and it would generate considerable demand if you could show what mods are needed to to exploit the MAF and the exhaust mods. If all it takes are bigger injectors, that is an easy modification.

I am fine if you want to swap my DME and chip for another stock unit. I have never looked, but I am the second owner. The first owner was doing venture capital. He clearly had no time for a car hobby, but he had $70K in play money to buy a Porsche. He sold me the car because he got frustrated with the battery drain issue (you can't start a 964 if you let it sit for more than a month or so). I owned a Hammer, and read the DME with it. All functions worked. The timing map, at least for maximum advance, agreed with the published technical data. That convinced me everything was stock.

Best regards, and warmest wishes for the holidays

Paul Springer
404 429 2318

Christer

I will not be contributing to this test for obvious reasons, and I have in any case shared results of all my mods with Rennlist (admittedly before a lot of you joined perhaps)

I don't know Vitesse Racing and I would like to apologise if any of my posts have caused distress. I remember that Colin 'Ninemeister' Belton also got a lot of grief for his products and dyno graphs etc, but IIRC he did not revert to attacking back like Vitesse have done and for that reason alone I will never buy a product from Vitesse Racing.

Good night and God bless.

Ritter v4.0

Christer - I'm not going to go back and read each post, but I don't recall John (counter) attacking, but rather defending his position. But I wouldn't have blamed him if he had.

Nevertheless vote with your wallet as you see fit.

fast951

Happy New Year, Hope 2008 will be a great year for everyone.

So far we discovered that the passion for Porsche and performance runs deep. We agreed to disagree and so far we got ticked off at each other, which was never the goal. If anyone feels I attacked them, it was never my intentions I was simply defending my position. I believe if we knew each other personally, we will be laughing not bickering. If anyone felt I attacked them, please accept my apology, it was never intentional. We are here to have fun not to make enemies.

Thank you for the offer to test and to help promote the product, but I would like to pass at this time for reasons to be announced at a later date. How about we quit fussing, help each other and see how much safe performance we can get out of the 964? It appears that not many vendors are even touching the 964. I have the know how and the experience and I like the 964, you can either push me away or work with me and see new products you will enjoy.

For the record, racing on the street is unsafe and I'm 100% against it. I will not be involved in any way whatsoever in any form of street racing. On the race track, under controlled and safe conditions, no problem. Street racing is a 100% no-no for the obvious reasons. I hope you agree!

If we take a look at the big picture, you love performance, I love to make cars perform and I love performance. We must agree that name calling, personal attacks, disrespect and bickering must stop. How about if we join forces and make it happen?

Ritter v4.0

Lets get Talladega GP for a weekday testing sesh sometime- its close (to Atl) and very reasonable.
We've already talked about it- throw in some testing and it could make for a very fun day.

deep_uv

Well said.

Happy New Year, John. Looking forward to seeing what you can come up with for us.

Best Regards,

forklift

I was going to start a new thread on this, but will just post here. I want to publicly thank John, Geoffrey and Colin/9M (sorry if I am missing others) for their continued work and especially development on our older, relatively rare cars………AND ALSO POSTING THEIR PRODUCTS and dyno charts or findings etc. I find the ongoing bickering very unfortunate and may dissuade them and others from posting their findings in the future. I hope they realize that there are others like me who mostly lurk and appreciate their efforts.

It has become apparent to me that whenever someone posts a dyno (or sometimes any new mod), there are a few that go into “attack mode” and not only immediately dismiss the findings, but are also rude doing so. Hopefully this SOP will help, but it is clear to me that it will be difficult if not impossible, to get a perfect before and after dyno. I’m not saying that everyone should accept anything posted on the web blindly, but at the same time realize that (and I can’t to speak for them, so this is IMO, or as I see it) the motivations of these tuners are not for a quick buck, but for the passion and love of these special cars and to improve on them. If there is an obvious flaw in the SOP, feel free to point it out politely, but don’t be rude. I’m sure there are plenty of other markets they would be interested in if they were trying to make a quick buck (Honda civics, etc.). I also see “attack mode” when someone just posts a dyno or even a butt-dyno from a new product. If they like their new mod and are kind enough to use their time telling all of us about it, then we benefit. If you aren’t interested or cannot question it politely, then don’t say anything……and the bottom line is that if you don’t think it is worth the money then don’t buy it!

Thanks to everyone who shares their knowledge and passion on this forum.

Geoffrey

Please don't think that I'm going to adopt this SOP for dyno testing, I already have my own test method that I've developed over the years. There are so many more variables to dyno testing than have been mentioned in this thread.

forklift

Hi Geoffrey,

I really just wanted to thank you guys for the effort put forth on the further development on these cars. Actually your post here got me started thinking about this, but the thread is now locked (last sentence): https://rennlist.com/forums/showpost...7&postcount=53

Thanks and Happy New Year,

Jim

jeff522

IMHO, all the talk about dyno testing is great, but as a group we will never agree on a SOP. Just like none of us will agree on a mods worth. If some one wants to share there dyno results or opinion of a modification great. I look at it and take it for what it is worth. Auto manufactures could not even agree on a standard testing method for hp. Notice how hp numbers have changed this past year for most cars made in the U.S. with the new Fed regulation on hp testing. If I was still doing the boy racer thing I might feel different, but my racetrack days have past. I hate to see what should be such a close community become so hostel to each other over something there is no real standard for. So the next time some one wants to share there experience with there 964 why not just look at it as such. That is there experience, mine might be different. I trust and respect the opinions shared here at Renlist. These are old cars long past there performance prime. It dose not make it any less fun to drive. If some one comes along and can help me get a little more out of my car, and I can afford it, I'll get it. We should all be glade that any one would be willing to help modify a 15 year old plus car of limited production numbers.

MitchB

Gents, any entity that does formal scientific testing will tell you the requirements are as follows -
1. Test ONE - and only one - variable at a time,
2. Test must be repeatable with the same result
..to be considered accurate or reliable.

If a MAF kit is dynoed along with an exhaust mod (two mods), and compared to the same stock car - you can make no claims abt the MAF kit.
The only true test of this MAF is to test the same car with ONE change. Say, for example - Derek's car with the stock AFM and chip, then with no other changes put in John's MAF kit (that's the MAF and Chip - it's the "kit" that is the variable - not the chip or MAF alone. The Kit is what Vitesse sells) and run it on the exact same test. In this case, the same dyno on the same day. For this test that's as close to a pure test that can be reasonably performed. And - that was done by John and Derek. The results have been posted. Note that those HP numbers are increases on Derek's car. Anyone who thinks the same numbers will apply to every car, needs to read the above again. Vitesse never claimed that every car will have the same increase. 'Nuff said.

The continued dialog about testing two different cars, or on the dragstrip, on the racetrack introduces far too many variables to be considered a "scientific" comparisons. I cannot fathom how some of the smart people on this forum continue to rant abt comparing two different cars.
Additionally, some have posted that a MAF setup will flow no more than the stock AFM. That tells me a considerable amount abt the poster. One need only look at them side by side to know that one has a spring activated "door" that must be forced open by the airflow to see that it is, by it's nature restrictive. There seems to be no argument with Derek's claims about much improved throttle response.
There have been many posts singing the praises of a LWF (Light Weight Flywheel) mod, because of only the increased throttle response and freer revving engine - but no HP increase . Yet here's a mod that does the same, will ultimately cost less, and can be installed in an afternoon (and supposedly adds induction noise - desireable to many...) AND adds HP. Yet it's all a ploy by a vendor to lie and reach into your wallet...?

For the record (read the posts), John at Vitesse has never asked anyone to buy this 964 MAF kit. Merely that he makes it avail for purchase. He never made any claims as to HP increases for every application, or even how much it will make. He simply posted the dyno chart for one application, and asked that everyone note that peak numbers were not the goal - safe HP across the RPM range (..area under the curve..) is.
If he has to change timing ("pushed" timing - WTF is that..?) to optimise the AFR from software written 18 years ago - I'm OK with that. I buy a new desktop computer every two years for the same reason.

Sorry to rant, and get off subject a bit. Yes, I have done business with Vitesse in the past (951 chip for a custom Turbo application), and have extremely pleased. I spent very little, and his products greatly exceeded his claims. I couldn't be happier that he is applying his expertise to the 964, as I will be picking up my '92 tommorow.

An SOP for dyno testing is easy -
One change at a time, on the same car, same day, same dyno. Repeat the test to verify the results - good or bad. Ignore claims made by forum naysayers, and enjoy.

Geoffrey

I will repeat myself again...altering ignition timing does not materially affect the air fuel ratio. Changes to the air fuel ratio are done through altering the injector pulsewidth for a given operating cell.

MitchB

Geoffery - you are correct. I guess I should have said driveability, or equivalent.
You've kept us all honest here, IMO...

gfunk

I didn't hear Vitesse or anyone else claiming that a MAF kit would provide similar benefits to a LWF. Not sure how the MAF kit will reduce engine inertia. Most people add a LWF when they've got their engine out for some other reason (clutch, top end rebulid etc) so it isn't very expensive.