forklift

Please see my post here, because it was directed towards you mostly: https://rennlist.com/forums/showpost...9&postcount=23

Keep it civil.

tonytaylor

That post is spot on.

Colin and Geoffery can let their products do the talking for themselves. It's interesting that Cargraphic, Sportec and FVD all produce MAF kits and are hardly fly by night con artists. Even RUF produce a rechip for the 964 and their reputation is probably better than that of Porsche itself.

It always amuses me that posters with little real knowledge of the subject seek to belittle these products. It's as if they trying to prove themselves in some way.

Loren's attitude is almost perverse; He clearly has a working knowledge of the subject but his selective use of the facts is hard to rationalise. Perhaps a tuner has done his a misdeed in the past.

If there was a problem with thse products and the improvements were all false then surely there would be hoards of disatisfied customers posting all over the net.

Anyway I thoght my MAF kit was great and frankly I wouldn't really care if the performance improvement was an illusion as long as being able to pass non modified cars remained part of that illusion.

N51

I must have missed that, but since you only provide facts, I'll accept it.

The wonderful thing about the knock sensors is they allow us to meet up (safely) against less than optimum fuel. Running through Nebraska's Rt 2, I had a choice between 87 octane and diesel. Gently pushed the car beyond speeds criticized by those members who've not experienced what it's like to look out upon the land and not see any farmhouse, for as far as the eye can see. I've never heard on this forum, or direct, of anyone utilizing the stock motronic knock sensors, who has suffered engine damage. They do not keep the engine from knock, but safely retard the ignition when it occurs. That is their purpose, not to prohibit, but to guard the engine.

Chip manufactures know what I know. The knock sensors will protect the owner of engine damage. The RS has 13hp over the standard 964. Most, but not all of this, is from its' specific ECU. Many of the chips can dyno higher than the RS. They move the bar, rely on a one time dyno graph, and put their safety in the knock sensors. Gaming.

Ritter v4.0

I've never dyno'd my car but it does feel a bit stronger on the track with Wong's chip- is that gaming too or merely placebo effect?

BTW- what was this thread about- I've forgotten.

Geoffrey

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but the knock sensors only protect the engine so much, and I have seen engine damage even when the knock sensors have been working.

The programming on the RS chip is some of the worst programming I've seen for the 964. What do you mean "specific ECU"? I have had the RS fuel and timing maps installed into a stock ECU and the ECU will produce the same amount of power as an RS ECU and have dyno sheet to support that test. I did this recently to get a chip homologated for PCA club racing since the RS brain is no longer available and Porsche has supersceeded the part number to the street part number. I don't know what is different between the two ECUs, but I know the software on the chips are not compatible between the two. I suspect the difference has nothing to do with performance, but that is just a guess on my part.

I think you guys are giving knock sensors way, way too much credit. If you read the technical details and articles on some of the LeMans LMP1 engines, you'll find that most of them do not employ knock sensing at all, they rely on the tuning of the engine.

N51

For our street engines, I give credit the knock sensors, for protection. I know Todd does, also. It is enough.

deoxford

The point was to write a well planned SOP for testing parts here in Atlanta .
But it has turned in to a debate ...

I think I am just going to enjoy my improvement , (however it got there)
And test and tune as I look for new mods in the future.

I know it's naive Loren, but if it breaks I will just buy a new one....better next time

TR6

Nah. It's just a healthy discussion.

N51

Thanks for your continued support! :-)

deep_uv

Yeah, that's like saying self righteous indignance is healthy. Oh, Ok.

springer3

Derek: It takes a pretty thick skin to post anything controversial here. This is your thread. You have a right to request that everyone stick to facts and opinions, and stop any negative personal comments. Positive strokes are always welcome. For my $0.02, you are a gentleman and a true sport for taking this on.

You are on the right track, and I hope you continue. My offer to pay for the dyno runs to cross check our acceleration runs is still open. Ritter wants to check some things on his car. We can ask for donations of we want to start looking at specific modifications. Garrett on the other coast will soon have some objective data to give us a sanity check.

Is this a great place or what?

Ritter v4.0

I get my car back this week and will try and dyno the following week.
Again, I'm just going to try it with current exhaust configuration ( no cat or primary) plus stock chip (my Blank) , then plus Wong chip (Sample 1), then plus MAF (Sample 2).

Happy to share the results if anyone wants to see them.

springer3

Very close to correct, but not quite.

Motor octane number (MON) is based on tests using an octane research motor, a single-cylinder IC engine with essentially a jack for a connecting rod. A dyno loads the engine at fixed RPM. Compression is increased until the engine starts to knock. To calibrate for the day's weather and other factors, the fuel supply is switched to certified iso-octane, which is the benchmark for 100-MON (same anti-knock properties as 100% iso-octane). A fuel with the same anti-knock properties as pure octane is, by definition, 100-octane fuel.

Research octane number (RON) is based on chemistry, and was developed to avoid costly motor testing and permit the marketing department to have some fun. RON is not as reliable as MON, and as Ritter's table shows, RON is always higher. Because it is a different test, the two methods are not the same. Chemistry is a factor in the RON. MON is true anti-knock property.

Remember Sunoco 260? That was definately an RON number. Octane ratings were a marketing game by then. Truth in advertising laws brought some order back, but RON was here to stay.

I have not seen PON before, but I assume it is pump octane number. In Georgia, the pump markings are (R+M)/2 - the average of the two methods.

TR6

Sorry, you lost me using such big words...

deoxford

Paul,
Don't get me wrong , I will still help but this SOP is not doing anywhere at all. It is becoming more complicated then it needs to be and the controls are now everywhere.

1. Bringing other cars will only show the drift or span of the instrument.
because each car is different and will preform different on the dyno.

2. The test need to be made with all the rest of the controls being the same for all.

3. yes there are changes in temp , and pressure but frankly we don't have the time and money to chase after all the variables.

Furthermore there is alot of data from the pass dyno runs that don't need to be deplicated....you know for government work.

If anything , I just what to make sure I run good for this track season...and gather some data