Bola964

I found this nice article at Total 911's January 2009 issue, and thought it was an interesting piece that may help clarify the doubts some of us might have in relation to this nice and sought after delepoment on the beloved 993, introduced in 1996.
Be the judge, and decide for yourself if there is a real diference in performance between the '95s and the later cars based on the introduction of this feature.
I'd like to hear your opinions and views on it. Click on the link below.
http://varioram.blogspot.com/
Enjoy!

logan2z

Recently discussed here: https://rennlist.com/forums/993-foru...m-article.html

Premier Motorsp

That article is crammed full of misleading statements and outright technical errors.

Varioram creates a large torque boost in the lower midrange. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not perform better in an acceleration contest because the rpms do not drop low enough.

Chris Cervelli
Spline Technologies

Steve Weiner-Rennsport Systems

Chris is correct,..its a major torque producer between idle and 4K. We've dyno'ed several engines including a '95 non-VR that we converted to VR just for some dyno tests to see back-to-back differences on the same engine.

There were no real-world power differences, but torque was better in the above noted RPM range. Its a nice boost for street engines but track motors live primarily above 4K and with close-ratio gears, I don't see a difference in acceleration or lap times.

JMHO,....

Fly911

I have a 1995 993, and I'm so happy that I don't have a VarioRam, for several reasons. First, who needs torque at low rpm, other than people that are put-putting around town, where every turn has a red traffic light? In any 911, the fun starts above 5000rpm. The non-VR motors have a less complex air intake, the VR intake has a lot of moving parts and is more complex and expensive to maintain. My philosophy is, especially for an "older" car, that something you don't have, can not break. The VR engine also have a lot of secondary air injection issues, that the non-VR engines don't have. The non-VR has and OBD-I port rather than the OBD-II for the VR cars, wich makes state inspections (emissions) easier, especially if you want to modify the exhaust system (no cats). For engine tuning, you wil basically get the same HP out of a non-VR engine as with a VR engine. Also, the VR intake adds a lot of weight where you need it the least. And the most fun for the money? Non-VR is the way to go!

Bill Verburg

Only US '96-98 993 are OBD2, RoW n/a are all OBD1, both vr and non-vr. vram has nothing to do w/ the OBD category. It's just that US cars got OBD2 at the same time that they got v-ram.

I agree OBD1 is far easier to deal w/ emissions wise.

I also agree that for a track car especially w/ nioce tight gearing, I'd rather have the plastic non-vr manifold or even better ITBs(maybe next year)

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. What DOES matter is gearing and weight (duh). The yellow car, while "slow" in relation to the 997GT3RS, etc. I'm trying to run with at the track, is pretty much always in the power band. The other car the plain, old first generation 3.6L engine shines? My old '74 that my friend now owns. Didn't even put a good exhaust on it, but when you're only pushing around 2600 lbs it goes just fine!

Rinty

When I was looking for a 993 last year, the Varioram was not on my list of purchase criteria. Now that I have one, with Varioram, I don't mind having the extra bit of torque, particularly given the big rpm splits between the gears.

From reading the threads here, I don't get the impression that the system is a big maintenance item.

2Many Cars

The nice thing about torque is that it makes a car FEEL fast. To me the extra torque is a pleasure whether I'm between stoplights or pulling out of curves on a winding road. The overall acceleration numbers may be the same but for those of us who seldom (if ever) take our cars on the track I'll vote for the extra low end torque any day.

Ed Burdell

The only thing that comes up is the rubber twin T that connects the vacuum actuators (my terminology is probably off). Anyway, this piece can collapse over time, leading to loss of varioram function. The fix is either to replace the piece (cheap) or insert a "stent" to prevent its collapse. There's a nice spring with just the right diameter from a particular handgun (do a search) that does the trick.

Rinty

Thanks Ed. If that's the only stent I ever need, I'll be a happy guy.

jackb911

The "my '95 is better" guys always make me chuckle.

OK, my turn:

When I was searching for my 993, I specifially wanted:

1.) Varioram!...torque (and the Varioram howl) is a Good Thing, and frankly, the engine looks a hell of a lot better than it does with the black plastic '95 intake. Gee, I'm sure the 10 extra pounds really destroys the handling. Didn't the 993RSR have an aluminum intake?

2.) A factory-installed rack brace so I could safely install 18" wheels.

3.) No hideous basket handle.

And just as all 996's in reality do not have catastrophic rear main seal failures, not all '96-'98's have SAI issues.<gasp!> An inexpensive code scanner and a short drive to reset the readiness codes takes care of the problem for those that do.

But hey, to each his/her own...

race911

Not all pre-1980 engines had chain tensioner failures, either. Or pulled studs. But damn straight we all made A LOT of money repairing those cars from the time they were basically new, until the cost of proper repair exceeded the value of the car.

Luftd993

I would get more miles to the gallon without varioram.

face-ache

This is what the guys without V-ram always say!! muuuuhhahaahaahahaa............