9M USA Dyno Chart - Second Car
08-16-2008 | 06:31 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 12
From: Kingston, NY
9M USA Dyno Chart - Second Car
Today I finished the dyno tuning of the second 9M car and have only the road testing and drivability left. Here is a comparison of the second car against the first car. The second 9M car has the following:
MoTeC ECU
Stock heat exchangers
Fabspeed Cat bypass
Fabspeed dual outlet exhaust
964 heads rebuilt, ported with 993RS valves
New design 9M USA Sport 2 cams, built in the USA
9M 100mm sport pistons (11.7:1 compression) with reconditioned stock cylinders
9M induction pipe and K&N Muffler
993 Throttlebody
The 9M sport pistons have larger valve pockets to accomodate a more agressive camshaft. The sport 2 cam has higher lift and longer duration than the Sport 1 camshaft and a higher operating range. The sport 2 camshaft usable power range is above where I would run a stock piston due to its weight. The 9M piston also has between .7 and .9:1 more compression than a stock piston. Due to fuel variances in Canada, the engine was tuned on Sunoco 91 octane fuel rather than the Mobil 93 octane of the first car.
I spent some additional time on this engine working out the resonance flap crossover RPM. I moved it higher than stock. The difference in power is from 5800rpm to 7200rpm where they cross again. There is a 38hp difference at 6700rpm between the open and closed position of the resonance flap. That was interesting.
As expected, the second car with the factory heat exchangeers and higher compression had slightly better low end torque. The sport 2 camshafts move the peak torque from 5000rpm to 5400rpm. What is interesting, is that it also makes more torque above 6500. I believe that with an improved header system, the engine would pick up 15hp or so.
With the increased compression and 91 octane fuel, this engine was much more detonation sensitive, more like the 4v engines I've been working with. There is a smaller window of acceptable timing.
The test conditions were:
300rpm/sec ramp rate through the pull (about 18 seconds on the 9M run)
First 9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 93F degrees
First 9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 29.816InHg
Second 9M engine was tested with the dynoc cell at 89.5F degrees
Second 9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 30.19InHg
SAE correction to a standard day on both cars
Both were tested with the cylinder head temp at 120c (via MoTeC)
The blue lines are Torque at the rear wheels
The green lines are HP at the rear wheels
The solid lines are from the Second 9M engine
The dotted lines are from the First 9M engine
The torque line does not cross the HP line at 5252 because the scales are different. The left scale is torque and the right scale is HP.
Because of Previous Rennlist Posts:
The numbers in the dyno charts are RWHP and I will not make any effort to convert from RWHP to FWHP, nor will I make any effort to compare these numbers to some other dyno test run at some other place on some other day, even if it was tested on a Dynapack dyno. I also don't care if you think the numbers are too high, too low, or wrong. This chart is for comparison only against the first 9M engine that was completed last month.
While I have tested a number of 964s in various states of tune, all with the same testing methodology, I'm not going to compare the 9M conversion to anything but a stock car. If you personally have a modified 964 and think it is better than stock, go have it tested against your friends stock 964 and post the results. I don't care about every combination of air filter, muffler bypass, RS, non RS, chipped car out there. I have enough data on my own to compare against.
I am not going to address any issues of running without knock sensors as this car was tuned for 91 octane fuel and that is the minimum fuel that this car requires. It has built in protection for high air temp and cylinder head temp to prevent it from ever knocking. The kit can be tuned for any fuel including 87 octane if one desired.
If you think Motronic ECUs are better, good, I'm happy for you, go find yourself your own thread and talk about your success there. I'm not going to compare and contrast another engine builder/tuner's approach as there are many different approches for increasing power and the 9M USA kit is only one of them. This is the only one I'm going to discuss.
MoTeC ECU
Stock heat exchangers
Fabspeed Cat bypass
Fabspeed dual outlet exhaust
964 heads rebuilt, ported with 993RS valves
New design 9M USA Sport 2 cams, built in the USA
9M 100mm sport pistons (11.7:1 compression) with reconditioned stock cylinders
9M induction pipe and K&N Muffler
993 Throttlebody
The 9M sport pistons have larger valve pockets to accomodate a more agressive camshaft. The sport 2 cam has higher lift and longer duration than the Sport 1 camshaft and a higher operating range. The sport 2 camshaft usable power range is above where I would run a stock piston due to its weight. The 9M piston also has between .7 and .9:1 more compression than a stock piston. Due to fuel variances in Canada, the engine was tuned on Sunoco 91 octane fuel rather than the Mobil 93 octane of the first car.
I spent some additional time on this engine working out the resonance flap crossover RPM. I moved it higher than stock. The difference in power is from 5800rpm to 7200rpm where they cross again. There is a 38hp difference at 6700rpm between the open and closed position of the resonance flap. That was interesting.
As expected, the second car with the factory heat exchangeers and higher compression had slightly better low end torque. The sport 2 camshafts move the peak torque from 5000rpm to 5400rpm. What is interesting, is that it also makes more torque above 6500. I believe that with an improved header system, the engine would pick up 15hp or so.
With the increased compression and 91 octane fuel, this engine was much more detonation sensitive, more like the 4v engines I've been working with. There is a smaller window of acceptable timing.
The test conditions were:
300rpm/sec ramp rate through the pull (about 18 seconds on the 9M run)
First 9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 93F degrees
First 9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 29.816InHg
Second 9M engine was tested with the dynoc cell at 89.5F degrees
Second 9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 30.19InHg
SAE correction to a standard day on both cars
Both were tested with the cylinder head temp at 120c (via MoTeC)
The blue lines are Torque at the rear wheels
The green lines are HP at the rear wheels
The solid lines are from the Second 9M engine
The dotted lines are from the First 9M engine
The torque line does not cross the HP line at 5252 because the scales are different. The left scale is torque and the right scale is HP.
Because of Previous Rennlist Posts:
The numbers in the dyno charts are RWHP and I will not make any effort to convert from RWHP to FWHP, nor will I make any effort to compare these numbers to some other dyno test run at some other place on some other day, even if it was tested on a Dynapack dyno. I also don't care if you think the numbers are too high, too low, or wrong. This chart is for comparison only against the first 9M engine that was completed last month.
While I have tested a number of 964s in various states of tune, all with the same testing methodology, I'm not going to compare the 9M conversion to anything but a stock car. If you personally have a modified 964 and think it is better than stock, go have it tested against your friends stock 964 and post the results. I don't care about every combination of air filter, muffler bypass, RS, non RS, chipped car out there. I have enough data on my own to compare against.
I am not going to address any issues of running without knock sensors as this car was tuned for 91 octane fuel and that is the minimum fuel that this car requires. It has built in protection for high air temp and cylinder head temp to prevent it from ever knocking. The kit can be tuned for any fuel including 87 octane if one desired.
If you think Motronic ECUs are better, good, I'm happy for you, go find yourself your own thread and talk about your success there. I'm not going to compare and contrast another engine builder/tuner's approach as there are many different approches for increasing power and the 9M USA kit is only one of them. This is the only one I'm going to discuss.
Last edited by Geoffrey; 08-17-2008 at 08:17 AM.
08-16-2008 | 09:25 PM
#4
Drifting
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
From: behind the Corn Curtain
If you think Motronic ECUs are better, good, I'm happy for you, go find yourself your own thread and talk about your success there. I'm not going to compare and contrast another engine builder/tuner's approach as there are many different approches for increasing power and the 9M USA kit is only one of them. This is the only one I'm going to discuss.
For those of us who have been a part of and have enjoyed this forum for many years, and know that I am likely the only one out there pursuing a Motronic build through Todd and Cynthia Knighton, I find your words unnecessary. Particularly so, given both my public and private thoughts to you and Colin.
It is time for you to burn your security blanket. Post up straight and clean.
By the way, nice work, again.
08-16-2008 | 09:39 PM
#5
Rennlist Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 573
Likes: 2
From: Hermosa Beach, CA
Geoffrey
Thanks for sharing, and in detail, your efforts. Stick to your guns and just post what the dyno tells you is at the ground, after all, we don't race by HP at the crank now do we?
This forum has gotten way-y too vitriolic of late. There are a few guys like Geoffrey who actually know what the hell they are talking about. Then there is the rest of us. In my view, when someone takes the time to construct a well worded and evidenced post, people shouldn't respond with rude posts and bashing.
I am raising a glass in a toast to Geophrey, well done man!
James
Thanks for sharing, and in detail, your efforts. Stick to your guns and just post what the dyno tells you is at the ground, after all, we don't race by HP at the crank now do we?
This forum has gotten way-y too vitriolic of late. There are a few guys like Geoffrey who actually know what the hell they are talking about. Then there is the rest of us. In my view, when someone takes the time to construct a well worded and evidenced post, people shouldn't respond with rude posts and bashing.
I am raising a glass in a toast to Geophrey, well done man!
James
08-16-2008 | 10:45 PM
#6
Racer
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 472
Likes: 1
From: strongsville, ohio
Geoffrey
Thanks for sharing, and in detail, your efforts. Stick to your guns and just post what the dyno tells you is at the ground, after all, we don't race by HP at the crank now do we?
This forum has gotten way-y too vitriolic of late. There are a few guys like Geoffrey who actually know what the hell they are talking about. Then there is the rest of us. In my view, when someone takes the time to construct a well worded and evidenced post, people shouldn't respond with rude posts and bashing.
I am raising a glass in a toast to Geophrey, well done man!
James
Thanks for sharing, and in detail, your efforts. Stick to your guns and just post what the dyno tells you is at the ground, after all, we don't race by HP at the crank now do we?
This forum has gotten way-y too vitriolic of late. There are a few guys like Geoffrey who actually know what the hell they are talking about. Then there is the rest of us. In my view, when someone takes the time to construct a well worded and evidenced post, people shouldn't respond with rude posts and bashing.
I am raising a glass in a toast to Geophrey, well done man!
James
Trending Topics
08-16-2008 | 11:31 PM
#8
Agent Orange
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,207
Likes: 571
I got to see the car on Thursday when Tommy and Geoffrey were putting it together, it's impressive. The owner will be very happy 
Geoffrey one question I wanted to ask, since you mention 91 octane. Is that what you're using for the dyno run and is there any reason you chose it over 93, since it's more common here on the East Coast?
Geoffrey one question I wanted to ask, since you mention 91 octane. Is that what you're using for the dyno run and is there any reason you chose it over 93, since it's more common here on the East Coast?
08-17-2008 | 07:55 AM
#12
Thread Starter
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 8,305
Likes: 12
From: Kingston, NY
Geoffrey one question I wanted to ask, since you mention 91 octane. Is that what you're using for the dyno run and is there any reason you chose it over 93, since it's more common here on the East Coast?
In addition to the engine, the transmission was regeared. We put a 5th gear ratio the same as the stock 4th gear and then replaced 2, 3, 4 and spaced them properly. Gears, along with a 996 Cup differential, really keep the engine in the powerband.
Geoffrey over-delivers on what he promises.
08-17-2008 | 08:20 AM
#13
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 194
From: Cheshire, England
Geoffrey,
For those of us who have been a part of and have enjoyed this forum for many years, and know that I am likely the only one out there pursuing a Motronic build through Todd and Cynthia Knighton, I find your words unnecessary. Particularly so, given both my public and private thoughts to you and Colin.
It is time for you to burn your security blanket. Post up straight and clean.
By the way, nice work, again.
For those of us who have been a part of and have enjoyed this forum for many years, and know that I am likely the only one out there pursuing a Motronic build through Todd and Cynthia Knighton, I find your words unnecessary. Particularly so, given both my public and private thoughts to you and Colin.
It is time for you to burn your security blanket. Post up straight and clean.
By the way, nice work, again.
It is pretty obvious why Geoffrey has chosen to use the caveat in the opening thread and to those of us who are seasoned regulars on the 964 forum I agree that it is probably unnecessary, however it is absolutely clear to me that those comments are definitely not made with you in mind. The bottom line is that there are a lot of folk who extol the virtues of retaining the Motronic yet (to date) have offered no hard evidence that they can achieve the same results as these or similar Motec conversions, hence why Geoffrey simply wants to avoid yet more "theoretical" debates as to what system is best and instead focus on the results so far achieved.
With respect to Todd, I have lost count of the number of times that I have openly promoted him as the only reliable source of competent Motronic tuning in NA (especially for 993 ecus) and I am very happy that you are using him for your conversion as I know he will do a great job. Once the car is done I will also look forward to seeing the results for two reasons. The first is that I expect to see you delighted with the performance of your car, the second reason is that we will then finally have a empirical data to conclude the seemingly never-ending ecu debate.
In the meantime why not start a thread for your engine build, it would be great to see it progressing?
08-17-2008 | 08:35 AM
#14
Addict
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 194
From: Cheshire, England
Geoffrey,
Nice result, probably close to the limit of what a stock intake manifold will support in terms of top end power.
With respect to the dyno result of 9m car number 2, I think that the dip in the torque curve from 3500 to 4500 is probably due to intake reversion caused by the larger 993 intake valves and could be resolved by replacing the 964 heat exchangers - a good set of headers (smaller tube or stepped) would increase the exhaust velocity, which in turn would drop exhaust port pressure at overlap to improve scavenging of the the combustion chamber.
Nice result, probably close to the limit of what a stock intake manifold will support in terms of top end power.
With respect to the dyno result of 9m car number 2, I think that the dip in the torque curve from 3500 to 4500 is probably due to intake reversion caused by the larger 993 intake valves and could be resolved by replacing the 964 heat exchangers - a good set of headers (smaller tube or stepped) would increase the exhaust velocity, which in turn would drop exhaust port pressure at overlap to improve scavenging of the the combustion chamber.
08-17-2008 | 11:34 AM
#15
Rennlist Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 332
Likes: 122
From: San Diego