Notices
993 Forum 1995-1998
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Varioram. Is it a true performance enhancer or not ??? Be the judge

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-27-2009, 07:49 PM
  #16  
CADguy
Instructor
 
CADguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yeah, VarioRam all the way!
With the airbox cover drilled and hogged out, I live for the "howl" at ~5200
RPM!
Now if only my magnesium intake had "varioram" cast-in like in "face-ache"s avitar, that would complete the whole experience.
Old 02-27-2009, 07:49 PM
  #17  
JM993
Banned
 
JM993's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by race911
Of the 4 3.6/3.8 engines I have available to drive, for the most part, I can't even tell the difference from that respect!
I can. Take it from someone who has done the conversion on a 95 car and therefore can compare without the added variable of car to car differences. For street driving there is a distinct advantage to VRAM. The car has much better throttle response and is simply more eager at rpms below 5K and half throttle or less. In other words, where we spend most of our time on the street.

I'm with Chris and Steve re: racing applications. There is little or no advantage simply because at large throttle openings and higher rpms (where racers spend most of their time) the vram replicates the intake path of the plastic manifold.

Having said all this, I'm certainly glad I dumb-lucked my way into a 95 car back in 98. No infuriating OBD-II. And adding VRAM is certainly doable and it's easy enough to delete the basket handle
Old 02-27-2009, 08:12 PM
  #18  
Kika
Nordschleife Master
 
Kika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Torrance, CA USA
Posts: 5,633
Received 80 Likes on 61 Posts
Default

for my daily street/hwy driving, the Vram represented better driveability for my purposes. I don't track my car. Everyone has different needs, for my needs, the Vram was the better choice.
Old 02-27-2009, 10:49 PM
  #19  
autobonrun
Rennlist Member
 
autobonrun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: kansas
Posts: 2,732
Received 407 Likes on 258 Posts
Default

Whatever the product, color, technology, or option it appears that if you got it it's great, and if you don't got it, it obviously sucks.

Dismissing the importance of torque below 4000 rpm makes absolutely no sense to me. I live for torque and will take it however I can get it. I won't even get into the "mine is better" discussion. I'm sure the avg joe would happily take either VR or nonVR.

However, last time I checked, acceleration was a function of weight and torque and the flat torque curve starts below 4000 rpm. I try to keep an open mind, but for the life of me I can't see why more torque won't lead to faster acceleration assuming weight is the same.
Old 02-28-2009, 12:49 AM
  #20  
axl911
Drifting
 
axl911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,559
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Default

How much does a chip in a 95 compared to a 96+Vram street driving <5000RPM wise? Steve says a chip makes up for some of the Vram, but I wonder how much?
Old 02-28-2009, 01:09 PM
  #21  
black ice
Three Wheelin'
 
black ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

I have a '95 and I'd sure love some more torque coming off of that long-*** gap between first and second, track or not...

dave



Quick Reply: Varioram. Is it a true performance enhancer or not ??? Be the judge



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:22 AM.