Steve Wong Chip?
07-16-2009, 10:43 PM
#31
"Unless you can back up your statements with test data, my research and those of other prove otherwise."
It appears some need to learn how to interpret a graph. As can be seen from
the graph basically NEGLIGIBLE power changes from 12.0 to 14.7 occur,
i.e. less than 3-4% in the torque curve. This has been seen in many
posted dyno runs on Rennlist.
"That is why the factory programming can only have a conservative amount of ignition advance, and if pushed hard under high heat conditions, the knock sensors can be triggered."
So! And that's the case for all timing. Read what's being "cut & pasted" off the
internet before posting on Rennlist as to the meaning and its applicability,
i.e. typical rambling to overwhelm the naive.
"When AFRs are richened to approximately Lambda 0.88-0.89, or 12.6-13.1 as in the above chart, not only is max power achieved but the combustion temperature is significantly reduced cooling the motor enough to prevent predetonation and allow increased ignition advance without reducing the the margin from stock."
Total hyperbole! So where're the data or the reference text to corroborate
this, i.e. the timing can "pushed"? Sounds like somebody's been copying
other "tuners" websites without fully understanding what's been really said.
"The O2 sensor is not only ignored at full throttle, but also at part throttle above 4000 rpm."
Time to open a 964 DME ECM and run a real time emulation versus just playing
with timing maps on a laptop.
"but it can easily be overridden via remapping to a Lambda of 0.87 under high part throttle loads and throttle transients achieving the principles described previous"
Laughable!
Bottom line: If you "throw" enough out there, those that have no idea will
always "suck-it-up", which is how most performance mods get sold.
Note: Read the excellent post from Springer3, as he did a very objective & comprehensive analysis.
And it looks like we're starting to see the personal acts which always occurs when one can't
deal with the message alone.
It appears some need to learn how to interpret a graph. As can be seen from
the graph basically NEGLIGIBLE power changes from 12.0 to 14.7 occur,
i.e. less than 3-4% in the torque curve. This has been seen in many
posted dyno runs on Rennlist.
"That is why the factory programming can only have a conservative amount of ignition advance, and if pushed hard under high heat conditions, the knock sensors can be triggered."
So! And that's the case for all timing. Read what's being "cut & pasted" off the
internet before posting on Rennlist as to the meaning and its applicability,
i.e. typical rambling to overwhelm the naive.
"When AFRs are richened to approximately Lambda 0.88-0.89, or 12.6-13.1 as in the above chart, not only is max power achieved but the combustion temperature is significantly reduced cooling the motor enough to prevent predetonation and allow increased ignition advance without reducing the the margin from stock."
Total hyperbole! So where're the data or the reference text to corroborate
this, i.e. the timing can "pushed"? Sounds like somebody's been copying
other "tuners" websites without fully understanding what's been really said.
"The O2 sensor is not only ignored at full throttle, but also at part throttle above 4000 rpm."
Time to open a 964 DME ECM and run a real time emulation versus just playing
with timing maps on a laptop.
"but it can easily be overridden via remapping to a Lambda of 0.87 under high part throttle loads and throttle transients achieving the principles described previous"
Laughable!
Bottom line: If you "throw" enough out there, those that have no idea will
always "suck-it-up", which is how most performance mods get sold.
Note: Read the excellent post from Springer3, as he did a very objective & comprehensive analysis.
And it looks like we're starting to see the personal acts which always occurs when one can't
deal with the message alone.
Last edited by Lorenfb; 07-16-2009 at 11:17 PM.
07-16-2009, 11:21 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: behind the Corn Curtain
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Loren,
You've just triggered me into writing my first post on here:-)
Firstly, Porsche engineers were already successful in extracting more power from the 964 engine way back in '92 in something called the (Euro) Carrera RS ;-)
It features a more aggressive (advanced) ignition maps to get the most out of 98RON knock resistance (and revised idle maps to handle single mass flywheel). Official power claims were 260 Bhp...which are claimed to be very conservative.
TThe RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
I have an interview in which one of the Weissach 964 CUP staff claims the K&N cup filter is the cheapest way to gain 7 Bhp on the 964. Can we agree Weissach Competition department knows what they're talking about?
This leaves us with all sorts of laws and regulations that Porsche has to abide with, whereas the individual owner can play around with a bit i.e. cup pipes, cat replacement pipes etc.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
30 Bhp is possible (proven fact) .... 38 Bhp might be possible (reasonable assumption). This brings us exactly in the realms of what most 'tuners' claim performance wise 280-290Bhp.
Many of them are indeed complete idiots when it comes to engine design, volumetric efficiency, anti knock strategies etc. However the likes of Ruf, RS Tuning, and of course the OE RS mapping have all been established through proper dyno tuning. These chips have been copied and pasted 1000's of times, Steve Wong for one openly claims to use the best parts of these with some additional refinement...whatever the latter means.
Cheers,
Harald
964 RS (FVD MAF - cup pipe - brown trousers)
You've just triggered me into writing my first post on here:-)
Firstly, Porsche engineers were already successful in extracting more power from the 964 engine way back in '92 in something called the (Euro) Carrera RS ;-)
It features a more aggressive (advanced) ignition maps to get the most out of 98RON knock resistance (and revised idle maps to handle single mass flywheel). Official power claims were 260 Bhp...which are claimed to be very conservative.
TThe RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
I have an interview in which one of the Weissach 964 CUP staff claims the K&N cup filter is the cheapest way to gain 7 Bhp on the 964. Can we agree Weissach Competition department knows what they're talking about?
This leaves us with all sorts of laws and regulations that Porsche has to abide with, whereas the individual owner can play around with a bit i.e. cup pipes, cat replacement pipes etc.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
30 Bhp is possible (proven fact) .... 38 Bhp might be possible (reasonable assumption). This brings us exactly in the realms of what most 'tuners' claim performance wise 280-290Bhp.
Many of them are indeed complete idiots when it comes to engine design, volumetric efficiency, anti knock strategies etc. However the likes of Ruf, RS Tuning, and of course the OE RS mapping have all been established through proper dyno tuning. These chips have been copied and pasted 1000's of times, Steve Wong for one openly claims to use the best parts of these with some additional refinement...whatever the latter means.
Cheers,
Harald
964 RS (FVD MAF - cup pipe - brown trousers)
>Claimed by who?
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp.
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze.
07-17-2009, 03:36 AM
#35
Racer
"Unless you can back up your statements with test data, my research and those of other prove otherwise."
It appears some need to learn how to interpret a graph. As can be seen from
the graph basically NEGLIGIBLE power changes from 12.0 to 14.7 occur,
i.e. less than 3-4% in the torque curve. This has been seen in many
posted dyno runs on Rennlist.
"That is why the factory programming can only have a conservative amount of ignition advance, and if pushed hard under high heat conditions, the knock sensors can be triggered."
So! And that's the case for all timing. Read what's being "cut & pasted" off the
internet before posting on Rennlist as to the meaning and its applicability,
i.e. typical rambling to overwhelm the naive.
"When AFRs are richened to approximately Lambda 0.88-0.89, or 12.6-13.1 as in the above chart, not only is max power achieved but the combustion temperature is significantly reduced cooling the motor enough to prevent predetonation and allow increased ignition advance without reducing the the margin from stock."
Total hyperbole! So where're the data or the reference text to corroborate
this, i.e. the timing can "pushed"? Sounds like somebody's been copying
other "tuners" websites without fully understanding what's been really said.
"The O2 sensor is not only ignored at full throttle, but also at part throttle above 4000 rpm."
Time to open a 964 DME ECM and run a real time emulation versus just playing
with timing maps on a laptop.
It appears some need to learn how to interpret a graph. As can be seen from
the graph basically NEGLIGIBLE power changes from 12.0 to 14.7 occur,
i.e. less than 3-4% in the torque curve. This has been seen in many
posted dyno runs on Rennlist.
"That is why the factory programming can only have a conservative amount of ignition advance, and if pushed hard under high heat conditions, the knock sensors can be triggered."
So! And that's the case for all timing. Read what's being "cut & pasted" off the
internet before posting on Rennlist as to the meaning and its applicability,
i.e. typical rambling to overwhelm the naive.
"When AFRs are richened to approximately Lambda 0.88-0.89, or 12.6-13.1 as in the above chart, not only is max power achieved but the combustion temperature is significantly reduced cooling the motor enough to prevent predetonation and allow increased ignition advance without reducing the the margin from stock."
Total hyperbole! So where're the data or the reference text to corroborate
this, i.e. the timing can "pushed"? Sounds like somebody's been copying
other "tuners" websites without fully understanding what's been really said.
"The O2 sensor is not only ignored at full throttle, but also at part throttle above 4000 rpm."
Time to open a 964 DME ECM and run a real time emulation versus just playing
with timing maps on a laptop.
It features a more aggressive (advanced) ignition maps to get the most out of 98RON knock resistance (and revised idle maps to handle single mass flywheel). Official power claims were 260 Bhp...which are claimed to be very conservative.
>Claimed by who?
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp.
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze.
>Claimed by who?
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp.
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze.
http://www.911chips.com/ignition.htm
The European cup brain is proprietary in that a chip either pulled or copied from it will not work in a standard 964 DME and vice versa. The effect is stuttering and cut outs after 2000 rpm. So beware of so called 'RS' or 'Cup' chips on ebay - they don't and cannot have ever existed! I speculate this was purposely done to prevent service or dealer personnel from swiping out the chips from these brains, or making copies and proliferating it amongst the 964 population. When the Euro Cup mappings are transfered directly onto a chip for a standard 964 chip and DME, both the Euro Cup DME and rechipped DME make EXACTLY the same power on the same motor. This we had to do this for two European Cup cars that were missing their original DMEs for a race series here in the U.S. and was tested and certified by Geoffrey Ring of Racetek on his dyno. He's handling several Euro Cup cars and has the test data/charts illustrating the differences, and he's might probably share them if kindly asked. And I can assure you such a chip does not exist from anywhere else, now or in the past. These cars are relatively rare - remember 27 or so still born Andial 964 Cup cars in the 90s? That's all there is to these motors - no more no less.
Last edited by Steve W; 07-17-2009 at 07:19 AM.
07-17-2009, 06:53 AM
#36
lol 
Loren is getting so owned by Steve W
What are you trying to achieve here Loren? Steve has a product that clearly works well- without the negative side-effects common with an inexperienced tuner's product. His knowledge has been proven through many happy customers who have extensively driven their cars with the chip.
Even if you were right, and Steve was just throwing around technical drivel designed to fool the ignorant, a lot can be said by the ways you conduct yourself. You are bitter, presumptuous, and disrespectful... while he remains polite and composed despite the venom being spat his way.
Prolly best if you take a step back instead of digging yourself deeper in the hole huh?
Loren is getting so owned by Steve W
What are you trying to achieve here Loren? Steve has a product that clearly works well- without the negative side-effects common with an inexperienced tuner's product. His knowledge has been proven through many happy customers who have extensively driven their cars with the chip.
Even if you were right, and Steve was just throwing around technical drivel designed to fool the ignorant, a lot can be said by the ways you conduct yourself. You are bitter, presumptuous, and disrespectful... while he remains polite and composed despite the venom being spat his way.
Prolly best if you take a step back instead of digging yourself deeper in the hole huh?
07-17-2009, 10:58 AM
#37
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
lol
Loren is getting so owned by Steve W
What are you trying to achieve here Loren? Steve has a product that clearly works well- without the negative side-effects common with an inexperienced tuner's product. His knowledge has been proven through many happy customers who have extensively driven their cars with the chip.
Even if you were right, and Steve was just throwing around technical drivel designed to fool the ignorant, a lot can be said by the ways you conduct yourself. You are bitter, presumptuous, and disrespectful... while he remains polite and composed despite the venom being spat his way.
Prolly best if you take a step back instead of digging yourself deeper in the hole huh?
Loren is getting so owned by Steve W
What are you trying to achieve here Loren? Steve has a product that clearly works well- without the negative side-effects common with an inexperienced tuner's product. His knowledge has been proven through many happy customers who have extensively driven their cars with the chip.
Even if you were right, and Steve was just throwing around technical drivel designed to fool the ignorant, a lot can be said by the ways you conduct yourself. You are bitter, presumptuous, and disrespectful... while he remains polite and composed despite the venom being spat his way.
Prolly best if you take a step back instead of digging yourself deeper in the hole huh?
This post is personal and over the top. Can we keep it civil even if we do not agree?
Thank you
07-17-2009, 11:50 AM
#38
Race Car
Lorenfb = condescending _______.
I can appreciate the knowledge, theories (supported/non-supported, coupled with empirical evidence, or not...) but the condescension is just heinous...really!
Lorenfb, please take some online courses in "bedside manner", in "surviving in social circles" or something...what I've read in this post alone (and I shudder to see that you have well over 2K posts!!) just drops my jaw every time.
I can see that you're very knowledgable with regards to Porsche tuning and the use of the word hyperbole, but the simple fact that you can't get through a post without insulting someone or a group of individuals is just pure F'n heinous. I cannot see, for the life of me how you think your condescending posts contribute to the subject manner?
I ask that you please refrain from responding to this post unless you have something useful to contribute...and quit picking on my lifetime hero, Mr. Wong. If you like, I can send you an 8" x 10" of him to frame and place on your desk.
I can appreciate the knowledge, theories (supported/non-supported, coupled with empirical evidence, or not...) but the condescension is just heinous...really!
Lorenfb, please take some online courses in "bedside manner", in "surviving in social circles" or something...what I've read in this post alone (and I shudder to see that you have well over 2K posts!!) just drops my jaw every time.
I can see that you're very knowledgable with regards to Porsche tuning and the use of the word hyperbole, but the simple fact that you can't get through a post without insulting someone or a group of individuals is just pure F'n heinous. I cannot see, for the life of me how you think your condescending posts contribute to the subject manner?
I ask that you please refrain from responding to this post unless you have something useful to contribute...and quit picking on my lifetime hero, Mr. Wong. If you like, I can send you an 8" x 10" of him to frame and place on your desk.
07-18-2009, 11:24 AM
#39
It features a more aggressive (advanced) ignition maps to get the most out of 98RON knock resistance (and revised idle maps to handle single mass flywheel). Official power claims were 260 Bhp...which are claimed to be very conservative.
>Claimed by who? ---> Irrelevant question, read the rest of the post.
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp. ---> LOL! This is just plain statement not backed up by any relevant facts. Since you're so keen in asking every nitty gritty detail on my sources...let me return the favor.
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious. ----> http://www.adrianstreather.com/
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze ---> dyno sheet posted on rennlist by fabspeed
>Claimed by who? ---> Irrelevant question, read the rest of the post.
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp. ---> LOL! This is just plain statement not backed up by any relevant facts. Since you're so keen in asking every nitty gritty detail on my sources...let me return the favor.
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious. ----> http://www.adrianstreather.com/
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze ---> dyno sheet posted on rennlist by fabspeed
07-18-2009, 12:25 PM
#40
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shipley, West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see to have stirred up a hornets nest!
I have a Steve Wong Chip on order and on its way to me in the UK.
My engine is standard/stock. It has recently been rebuilt top & bottom with all the neccessary parts replaced. It is thoroughly run in having done about 3000 miles since rebuild.
The chip I ordered was for 95 RON - stock engine.
I do not have the current dyno info. And I am not seeking an overall power increase per se.
I shall assess the chips performance agains three criteria:
1. Whether the idle is smoother, ideally rock steady.
2. Whether there is more 'pulling' power at normal street use revs, say 2000 to 4500, through the gears, and in each gear.
3. Whether the fuel usage is changed - I do have accurate current usage over several months.
Steve Wong has indicated that I should expect an improved idle but that there may still be a little hunting due to the operation of the O2 sensor.
I will report my findings after running the chip for two or three weeks.
I have a Steve Wong Chip on order and on its way to me in the UK.
My engine is standard/stock. It has recently been rebuilt top & bottom with all the neccessary parts replaced. It is thoroughly run in having done about 3000 miles since rebuild.
The chip I ordered was for 95 RON - stock engine.
I do not have the current dyno info. And I am not seeking an overall power increase per se.
I shall assess the chips performance agains three criteria:
1. Whether the idle is smoother, ideally rock steady.
2. Whether there is more 'pulling' power at normal street use revs, say 2000 to 4500, through the gears, and in each gear.
3. Whether the fuel usage is changed - I do have accurate current usage over several months.
Steve Wong has indicated that I should expect an improved idle but that there may still be a little hunting due to the operation of the O2 sensor.
I will report my findings after running the chip for two or three weeks.
07-18-2009, 02:30 PM
#41
Three Wheelin'
Steve W. has sold me.
He's reiterated pretty straight-forward knowledge that anyone who has drawn up a fuel & ignition map for motronic / megasquirt / etc. is well aware.
Simplified- a near stoic mix is great for emissions, but high on exhaust temps, and easy to get into pinging territory.
Aiming for the richer side tends to reduce egt's dramatically and allows you to push ignition advance to coax more power, without running up against knock.
Of course, the devil is in the details, but I'm not really sure what Loren is refuting?
Anyway, I'm down for the group buy
He's reiterated pretty straight-forward knowledge that anyone who has drawn up a fuel & ignition map for motronic / megasquirt / etc. is well aware.
Simplified- a near stoic mix is great for emissions, but high on exhaust temps, and easy to get into pinging territory.
Aiming for the richer side tends to reduce egt's dramatically and allows you to push ignition advance to coax more power, without running up against knock.
Of course, the devil is in the details, but I'm not really sure what Loren is refuting?
Anyway, I'm down for the group buy
07-18-2009, 05:23 PM
#42
I have the SW chip in my car, with cat bypass and cup pipe (primary bypass) and LWF, the idle is rock steady, and it pulls like a train, I would highly recommend it, the difference is very noticeable.
07-19-2009, 12:58 AM
#43
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: behind the Corn Curtain
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It features a more aggressive (advanced) ignition maps to get the most out of 98RON knock resistance (and revised idle maps to handle single mass flywheel). Official power claims were 260 Bhp...which are claimed to be very conservative.
>Claimed by who? ---> Irrelevant question, read the rest of the post.
Irrelevant, and yet Steve Wong, in this same thread verifies:"The European Cup cars dyno approximately 10 more hp due to the additional 3 degrees of ignition timing from 3000 rpm up."
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp. ---> LOL! This is just plain statement not backed up by any relevant facts. Since you're so keen in asking every nitty gritty detail on my sources...let me return the favor.
Porsche. And Steve Wong. Again, your source?
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious. ----> http://www.adrianstreather.com/
My apology, but I could not locate, in Adrian's website, your reference.
Thanks for your additional help here.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze ---> dyno sheet posted on rennlist by fabspeed
This one needs no comment. :-)
I'm self-employed. I'm not here to sell anything. You? Selling something or yourself?
>Claimed by who? ---> Irrelevant question, read the rest of the post.
Irrelevant, and yet Steve Wong, in this same thread verifies:"The European Cup cars dyno approximately 10 more hp due to the additional 3 degrees of ignition timing from 3000 rpm up."
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp. ---> LOL! This is just plain statement not backed up by any relevant facts. Since you're so keen in asking every nitty gritty detail on my sources...let me return the favor.
Porsche. And Steve Wong. Again, your source?
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious. ----> http://www.adrianstreather.com/
My apology, but I could not locate, in Adrian's website, your reference.
Thanks for your additional help here.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze ---> dyno sheet posted on rennlist by fabspeed
This one needs no comment. :-)
I'm self-employed. I'm not here to sell anything. You? Selling something or yourself?
07-19-2009, 02:06 AM
#44
Drifting
This topic seems to come up about every year. Here were my findings using actual data. I am generally a fan of Steve and think he is an honest guy. The gains in my case were modest but my testing had it's issues as well. I sold my chip when I stopped tracking my baby, but would probably get another one. See link below for my findings.
https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...or-a-c2-3.html
https://rennlist.com/forums/964-foru...or-a-c2-3.html
07-19-2009, 07:35 AM
#45
It features a more aggressive (advanced) ignition maps to get the most out of 98RON knock resistance (and revised idle maps to handle single mass flywheel). Official power claims were 260 Bhp...which are claimed to be very conservative.
>Claimed by who? ---> Irrelevant question, read the rest of the post.
Irrelevant, and yet Steve Wong, in this same thread verifies:"The European Cup cars dyno approximately 10 more hp due to the additional 3 degrees of ignition timing from 3000 rpm up."
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp. ---> LOL! This is just plain statement not backed up by any relevant facts. Since you're so keen in asking every nitty gritty detail on my sources...let me return the favor.
Porsche. And Steve Wong. Again, your source?
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious. ----> http://www.adrianstreather.com/
My apology, but I could not locate, in Adrian's website, your reference.
Thanks for your additional help here.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze ---> dyno sheet posted on rennlist by fabspeed
This one needs no comment. :-)
I'm self-employed. I'm not here to sell anything. You? Selling something or yourself?
>Claimed by who? ---> Irrelevant question, read the rest of the post.
Irrelevant, and yet Steve Wong, in this same thread verifies:"The European Cup cars dyno approximately 10 more hp due to the additional 3 degrees of ignition timing from 3000 rpm up."
The RS engine is exactly the same as standard 964 -bar a camshaft without aircon drive- but was hand picked & assembled to the tightest tolerances. So to which part would this be responsible for the RS' higher power?
>All. And a total of 10hp. ---> LOL! This is just plain statement not backed up by any relevant facts. Since you're so keen in asking every nitty gritty detail on my sources...let me return the favor.
Porsche. And Steve Wong. Again, your source?
To isolate the above we need to use RS mapping on a standard production line C2 engine. Adrian Streather has put a bog standard C2 on the rollers which gave 258 Bhp with the standard ECU and 282 Bhp with the RS ECU. A good 9% increase in performance.
>Please provide, in detail, your source. Thanks. I'm curious. ----> http://www.adrianstreather.com/
My apology, but I could not locate, in Adrian's website, your reference.
Thanks for your additional help here.
We've just seen that through mapping and low restriction airfilter an increase of around 30 Bhp is possible. I have never seen 964 dyno data on cup pipes and cat deletes, however the fabspeed header/muffler kit without cat showed 25 Bhp on the dyno....so let's conservatively say a cup pipe in combination with cat replacement only brings a third of this...8 BHp.
>Just seen? Again, Please provide your source. If from a marketer, you're
left in the breeze ---> dyno sheet posted on rennlist by fabspeed
This one needs no comment. :-)
I'm self-employed. I'm not here to sell anything. You? Selling something or yourself?
I just responded to Loren's statements who claimed that performance mapping/chipping has no use on the 964 because noone would be able to improve the work done at the porsche factory. I disagree with this and gave my fact based arguments to back this up.
Now what do Steve Wongs claims have to do with me calling your first question irrelevant. Just like me he claims that the RS mapping has more aggressive ignition mapping that lead to a higher power output.
However further on you claim the exact opposite (!), namely that the RS's extra power is solely contributed by the hand selected production process and therefore purely mechanical. You now even claim Porsche as your source for this!!!
This is total BS, read the Porsche bulletin for dealership training on the RS....it claims in detail that the added power is a result of both mechanical (engine build process) AND electronics (mapping), the latter requiring exclusive use of 98RON fuel.
Given the above FACT and since we were discussing the effects of mapping one needs to seperate the effects on RS power of both mapping and the hand selected build process.
The above is only valid scientific procedure which is just what Adrian's publications have allowed us to do: he clipped in a OE RS motronic (The ECU not just the chip) as well as a OE CUP motronic into a standard C2 and tested the difference on the rollers.
Now rollers might be inaccurate in their representation of power, but are a very accurate means of measuring diffrence in performance when changing components. That's why I represented the performance as a % which again is total valid scientific methodology.
The next part in my post is an educated guess. Then again do you really want to argue about a conservative 8HP gues for a cat bypass and cup pipe...be serious!
Again, I'm not trying to sell anything. I've been owning RS' since new from '92 onwards and have gathered some experience over the years as well as an extensive libarry with RS documentation that I just wanted to share.
That's all!!!
Cheers,
Harald