PMO ITB's, DC 43 cam, JIC, Electromotive TEC3R, etc
06-15-2011, 05:19 PM
#31
06-15-2011, 10:37 PM
#32
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Steven. Cant wait to install the LWF and get the full benefits. If you noticed it idled pretty much like stock. Seems I could have gone for a bigger cam! Of course have to get it tuned and on the road for a better impression.
06-16-2011, 09:01 AM
#34
Nordschleife Master
Unlike the regular motronic, the idle of the ITB is dependent on the throttle body opening and not the DME.
The immobilizer issue cropped up so we are figuring out a way to disable it. I dont have a clue on how they will do it. This is the only roadblock that we are facing. I dont know why he asked for the old ecu. Needed a part for the immobilizer by-pass I guess
UPDATE: Never knew the synchronization of throttle bodies are difficult.
You'll also want to ensure you have a barometric pressure sensor to properly compensate for different altitude and weather. Without it, an engine mapped with TPS as the fuel load, will have inconsistent AFRs.
Good luck, nice project
06-16-2011, 07:57 PM
#35
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idling with the ITBs won't be an issue, however, with cold start, you'll need your foot on the throttle to crack the plates a little. It will idle about 300rpm lower until warm due to fuel atomization. You can use the ECU timing to assist greatly and is an integral component of cold start programming.
What immobilizer probelm are you having? I just finished a MoTeC conversion on a 98C4 and the immobilizer still works.
Synching should not be an issue at all and shouldn't take more than 30 minutes with the PMOs you have. As long as the engine will run smooth at 2k rpm, synching is a matter of bleed screws for each bank and then the linkage between the banks.
You'll also want to ensure you have a barometric pressure sensor to properly compensate for different altitude and weather. Without it, an engine mapped with TPS as the fuel load, will have inconsistent AFRs.
Good luck, nice project
What immobilizer probelm are you having? I just finished a MoTeC conversion on a 98C4 and the immobilizer still works.
Synching should not be an issue at all and shouldn't take more than 30 minutes with the PMOs you have. As long as the engine will run smooth at 2k rpm, synching is a matter of bleed screws for each bank and then the linkage between the banks.
You'll also want to ensure you have a barometric pressure sensor to properly compensate for different altitude and weather. Without it, an engine mapped with TPS as the fuel load, will have inconsistent AFRs.
Good luck, nice project
My immobilizer were giving me problems even before. They by-passed it but I dont have the details.
Is the MAP sensor considered a barometric pressure sensor? I have a MAP sensor.
After going thru numerous threads, in the 964 section here, your engines are one of the best. I have a Excellence article on a white 964 with blue carrera stickers, that had a ported head, cam, motec etc and a really strong engine. Its one of those articles that I re-read a lot! And of course the Singer article too!!
06-16-2011, 08:57 PM
#36
Race Car
No, the MAP sensor reads the presure in the manifold "Manifold Absolute Pressure". Many ecu's have a BAP built in and then use this to adjust fuel and ignition etc based on altitude.
Some can use a second MAP sensor as a BAP and go that way, it would read from engine compartment, this would be then selected in the software as a BAP input etc.
Some can use a second MAP sensor as a BAP and go that way, it would read from engine compartment, this would be then selected in the software as a BAP input etc.
06-16-2011, 08:59 PM
#37
Nordschleife Master
The MAP sensor can be a baro pressure sensor depending on how it is hooked up and whether or not the software supports it.
Sorry about the conversion box, I just finished the first one and the 993 presents some unique challenges compared to the 964. It really isn't "plug n play" at the moment.
Sorry about the conversion box, I just finished the first one and the 993 presents some unique challenges compared to the 964. It really isn't "plug n play" at the moment.
06-17-2011, 08:39 PM
#38
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the MAP sensor reads the presure in the manifold "Manifold Absolute Pressure". Many ecu's have a BAP built in and then use this to adjust fuel and ignition etc based on altitude.
Some can use a second MAP sensor as a BAP and go that way, it would read from engine compartment, this would be then selected in the software as a BAP input etc.
Some can use a second MAP sensor as a BAP and go that way, it would read from engine compartment, this would be then selected in the software as a BAP input etc.
07-04-2011, 10:17 AM
#39
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick update on the project. Had to wait for the missing LWF parts before we tuned. So it was only today that we began the tuning process.
Before I proceed with the nos, I just came back from a trip to Singapore and met a great guy, Andy Tatlow. He is a former Porsche race mechanic from England. I saw an article in Total911 which featured a 70's 911 that had a 964 engine and ITB's. Since I was going to Singapore, I decided to see him. He had a 993 with CMW heads, DC 60 cam, 3.8 liter, LWF etc. I had him start the car and the response was beautiful.
The guy is crazy and he showed me his latest project, a 930 with an installed 993 suspension! But the car was still apart. To my amazement, we shared notes and it seems we know the same top of the line shops like for porting, extreme heads, EBS Racing for parts, and so on. My bro took some pics so I am waiting for them.
I am happy with my tune. I gained plus 50 rwhp. My previous dyno on a dynapack was a measly 229 rwhp or 270 at the crank. This was post headers. So my new rwhp is 280 and 330 at the crank! Andy said that the 993 3.8 with ITBs should put out 350hp. So based on numerous threads, 20hp seemed like a ballpark figure that the extra displacement would give.
I wanted him to squeeze more and my tuner, Tommy of Autechnica, said that it would be better to be conservative. Great guy!
Like I mentioned before, its the response that I am after and not the actual hp no. Well a higher should give a better response. LOL....
Ill post the graphs tom.
Before I proceed with the nos, I just came back from a trip to Singapore and met a great guy, Andy Tatlow. He is a former Porsche race mechanic from England. I saw an article in Total911 which featured a 70's 911 that had a 964 engine and ITB's. Since I was going to Singapore, I decided to see him. He had a 993 with CMW heads, DC 60 cam, 3.8 liter, LWF etc. I had him start the car and the response was beautiful.
The guy is crazy and he showed me his latest project, a 930 with an installed 993 suspension! But the car was still apart. To my amazement, we shared notes and it seems we know the same top of the line shops like for porting, extreme heads, EBS Racing for parts, and so on. My bro took some pics so I am waiting for them.
I am happy with my tune. I gained plus 50 rwhp. My previous dyno on a dynapack was a measly 229 rwhp or 270 at the crank. This was post headers. So my new rwhp is 280 and 330 at the crank! Andy said that the 993 3.8 with ITBs should put out 350hp. So based on numerous threads, 20hp seemed like a ballpark figure that the extra displacement would give.
I wanted him to squeeze more and my tuner, Tommy of Autechnica, said that it would be better to be conservative. Great guy!
Like I mentioned before, its the response that I am after and not the actual hp no. Well a higher should give a better response. LOL....
Ill post the graphs tom.
07-04-2011, 05:12 PM
#41
Rennlist Member
Hi Camlob
Good work. Can wait to see the graphs. Torque and hp.
My best RW run on Dynapack 5000 at 17 celcius and 55 humidity prior to DC cam install was 264 hp and 233 lbft.
Then I installed the cams and at the same time replaced the Beru leads with new ones and the spark plugs too. The only other thing I did was install the lighter weight OEM RS dual crank pulley...
It felt much better on the road, more urgent. However the dyno showed a 5% increase in torque and hp across 3000-3750 rpm (a handy range but a tight band) and then up to 5% loss across the rest of the torque and hp curve! You can imagine my dissapointment!!!
No one I spoke to could work out what had happened. The negine builder reckons they did their job perfectly, the Dyno guy says it ran up well but may have been a bit lean in places but that that didnt explain the drop when we had hoped for an increase.
Worse still it had developed an annoying stalling issue. And cold idle was surging for 30 seconds on start up.
So I bit the bullet and decided for a Motec install. Except I chose LINK (g4 Extreme) as like the Dynapak its a NZ invention and my dyno shop are one of the top installers for ralley and race cars.
The install started last week. Guess what! They found that one of my coil packs wasnt working. It looks like its been this way for a while - probably during the DC21 camshaft install when they dropped the engine and installed new leads! Ive been runing on one coil pack. This would explain the stalling which I never had before and also the wild surging! Colin Belton had exactly the same issue on a NVR Motec install back in 2009 (almost identical senario). But of course I didnt find that post until after the coil was found to be faulty!
Too late tho as my LINK was installed! However Ive had to fly a new coil pack into NZ before tuning can begin. The system they installed is very easy to reverse to factory Motronic. The will start the car on motronic when the new coil pack is installed in a few days time, log the data then revert to the LINK, change the injectors to higher flow Bosch red devils I supplied, remove the factory MAF and replace with a custom fabricated alloy housing they designed which takes my cone filter and the MAP sensor and then spend 4-5 hrs on the dyno tuning and 2-3 hrs on the road for driveability.
Im looking forward to the results. The driveability Ive been told will improve alot as a result. Like you this is key for me as I need a car even my wife could drive. They can elliminate stalling (not that there should be any anylonger) and also the idle. They are also confident with the LINK they can make best use of my Cams, LWFC and exhaust modifications.
The jury is out. After a false start (if I had found the coil pack issue I probably wouldnt have even bothered going LINK if the dyno results had have been an improvement on pre cam install), I am hoping within a weeks time the car will be complete, running and making good power and driveability. My expectations are 280 RWHP+ and 250 lbft RWTQ+. Of course best laid plans and all that....
Your car posted low pre install. That could have been the headers or just the engine. Some are higher than others. Your post tune figures still leave some on the table I would suggest. I think you can probably easily find 10 RWHP and 10lbft RW with a bit more tuning. The tuning is where its seems to be at....
This article you may have seen but it inspired me to go this way after reading it i was reaching for the phone to have the ECU installed :-)
http://www.neuralblog.com/_content/P...-363_pn-1.html
As an aside - I have reverted to Dynapak readouts from my engine with a TCF of 1:1 (i.e. straight RWHP/TQ figures). My dynapak operator is one of the first to adopt Dynapak. He helped develope teh product with the NZ inventor and has been using it for 12 years. They also have access engine dyno and for a efficent drivetrain vehicle like a touring car V8 use a mark up of no more than 10% (and often 9%) as they have found back to back with the engine dyno this is the most accurate loss factor. You must remember Dynapack is hub mounted dyno. This is RW readings will be 3-4% higher than a roller type system. As such the loss factor is much lower as with a fettled 993 on a roller you would be looking at 13-15% loss as a relaistic number (lower end with LWFC and fresh internals etc) then with Dynapack you are looking at 9-11%. If you use just your RW numbers its more accurate as it allows for less speculation especially when comparing to others on this board using Mustang and other roller systems (most of them).
Sorry Im not meaning to steal your thread its just I havent updated my thread and weve been doing our work in similar time frame and Ive been watching yours closely - thought you might find it of interest. The dyno traces would be great as we use the same system so Id love to see what they look like. I will post mine next week when I have them. Ive attached a pic of the LINK ECU installed....
Good work. Can wait to see the graphs. Torque and hp.
My best RW run on Dynapack 5000 at 17 celcius and 55 humidity prior to DC cam install was 264 hp and 233 lbft.
Then I installed the cams and at the same time replaced the Beru leads with new ones and the spark plugs too. The only other thing I did was install the lighter weight OEM RS dual crank pulley...
It felt much better on the road, more urgent. However the dyno showed a 5% increase in torque and hp across 3000-3750 rpm (a handy range but a tight band) and then up to 5% loss across the rest of the torque and hp curve! You can imagine my dissapointment!!!
No one I spoke to could work out what had happened. The negine builder reckons they did their job perfectly, the Dyno guy says it ran up well but may have been a bit lean in places but that that didnt explain the drop when we had hoped for an increase.
Worse still it had developed an annoying stalling issue. And cold idle was surging for 30 seconds on start up.
So I bit the bullet and decided for a Motec install. Except I chose LINK (g4 Extreme) as like the Dynapak its a NZ invention and my dyno shop are one of the top installers for ralley and race cars.
The install started last week. Guess what! They found that one of my coil packs wasnt working. It looks like its been this way for a while - probably during the DC21 camshaft install when they dropped the engine and installed new leads! Ive been runing on one coil pack. This would explain the stalling which I never had before and also the wild surging! Colin Belton had exactly the same issue on a NVR Motec install back in 2009 (almost identical senario). But of course I didnt find that post until after the coil was found to be faulty!
Too late tho as my LINK was installed! However Ive had to fly a new coil pack into NZ before tuning can begin. The system they installed is very easy to reverse to factory Motronic. The will start the car on motronic when the new coil pack is installed in a few days time, log the data then revert to the LINK, change the injectors to higher flow Bosch red devils I supplied, remove the factory MAF and replace with a custom fabricated alloy housing they designed which takes my cone filter and the MAP sensor and then spend 4-5 hrs on the dyno tuning and 2-3 hrs on the road for driveability.
Im looking forward to the results. The driveability Ive been told will improve alot as a result. Like you this is key for me as I need a car even my wife could drive. They can elliminate stalling (not that there should be any anylonger) and also the idle. They are also confident with the LINK they can make best use of my Cams, LWFC and exhaust modifications.
The jury is out. After a false start (if I had found the coil pack issue I probably wouldnt have even bothered going LINK if the dyno results had have been an improvement on pre cam install), I am hoping within a weeks time the car will be complete, running and making good power and driveability. My expectations are 280 RWHP+ and 250 lbft RWTQ+. Of course best laid plans and all that....
Your car posted low pre install. That could have been the headers or just the engine. Some are higher than others. Your post tune figures still leave some on the table I would suggest. I think you can probably easily find 10 RWHP and 10lbft RW with a bit more tuning. The tuning is where its seems to be at....
This article you may have seen but it inspired me to go this way after reading it i was reaching for the phone to have the ECU installed :-)
http://www.neuralblog.com/_content/P...-363_pn-1.html
As an aside - I have reverted to Dynapak readouts from my engine with a TCF of 1:1 (i.e. straight RWHP/TQ figures). My dynapak operator is one of the first to adopt Dynapak. He helped develope teh product with the NZ inventor and has been using it for 12 years. They also have access engine dyno and for a efficent drivetrain vehicle like a touring car V8 use a mark up of no more than 10% (and often 9%) as they have found back to back with the engine dyno this is the most accurate loss factor. You must remember Dynapack is hub mounted dyno. This is RW readings will be 3-4% higher than a roller type system. As such the loss factor is much lower as with a fettled 993 on a roller you would be looking at 13-15% loss as a relaistic number (lower end with LWFC and fresh internals etc) then with Dynapack you are looking at 9-11%. If you use just your RW numbers its more accurate as it allows for less speculation especially when comparing to others on this board using Mustang and other roller systems (most of them).
Sorry Im not meaning to steal your thread its just I havent updated my thread and weve been doing our work in similar time frame and Ive been watching yours closely - thought you might find it of interest. The dyno traces would be great as we use the same system so Id love to see what they look like. I will post mine next week when I have them. Ive attached a pic of the LINK ECU installed....
07-04-2011, 06:54 PM
#42
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Macca - Its a good thing your car didnt detonate. The shop in Sing with the 993, his engine blew while in the Sepang circuit, because of exactly the same reason. The owner lent the car to a race driver, who didnt have a clue that if the car is down on power, something is definitely wrong. Melted the pistons and thus the owner went all the way of installing new CMW heads, and the 3.8 kit. You are a lucky man. Well if it did happen, good reason to get a 3.9 kit!!
The tuner will be doing a street tune today. The PLX gauge looks cool since you can see the AFR readings.
Our dyno here reads low. Maybe its the heat and humidity. Even on a dynojet, our nos dont come close to the ones churned out in the States. The gain from the base is whats important. I am sure thats what you are looking for also. There two 993's that dynoed here months ago. One was tuned by Tommy, which churned out a baseline of 200 and post tune, 210rwhp. Another one was my friend, who got my Steve W chip, had similar results of 209rwhp.
Thats why I went with DFIs. To cut the risk of a belt getting cut in one of the distributors.
You are a lucky man!
The tuner will be doing a street tune today. The PLX gauge looks cool since you can see the AFR readings.
Our dyno here reads low. Maybe its the heat and humidity. Even on a dynojet, our nos dont come close to the ones churned out in the States. The gain from the base is whats important. I am sure thats what you are looking for also. There two 993's that dynoed here months ago. One was tuned by Tommy, which churned out a baseline of 200 and post tune, 210rwhp. Another one was my friend, who got my Steve W chip, had similar results of 209rwhp.
Thats why I went with DFIs. To cut the risk of a belt getting cut in one of the distributors.
You are a lucky man!
Last edited by camlob; 07-04-2011 at 08:33 PM.
07-04-2011, 08:37 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
Hi Camlob
Lucky there are two coils in the 993 and I only lost the secondary one. The dyno showed AFRs across the range of 0.87-0.91 during the dyno runs with the secondary coil down. Nothing dramatic at all. Infact within the line of what we were expecting with the new cams.
Colin covers it off perfectly in this thread below. The secondary coil will cause some retardation. Maybe a reduction in power of up to 10% (probably not easily noticeable on the street). Interestingly unlike on the 964 it can be almost impossible to know you have lost the secondary coil. The car runs pretty much as before but obviously you dont have the benefit of the extra spark. The sparks in the 993 dual dissy system are fired simultanously not with a time lag like can be the case in other dual coil set ups. The give away is stalling/idle issues where the spark is not strong and the fueling may be richer.
Anyone experiencing similar running issues (especially with LWFC and hotter cams) should check the coil packs. They fail rarely but they do fail (as I found when I researched Rennlist).
Heres Colins thread with dyno graphs to show the difference bwteen one coil and two and also Motec and non motec NVR - its a great read:
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...eferrerid=6980
Interestingly I had replaced the plugs, HT leads, distributors, disti drive belt and bearing, alternator bearings, all belts and MAF with new ones during the project. Factory injectors were fully serviced (and shortly to be replaced with the new hi flow ones when the LINK ecu comes online). The wiring harness was replaced during the recall in 2005. Now the dual coil pack is replaced with a new one, and a new aftermarket ECU is installed basically all the electrics have been refreshed and one would hope will last another 18 years before needing any attention!
Regards the Dyno. Ive run 4 sessions to date on the Dynpak 5000 over 10 months. Temps have ranged from 17-24 celcius and from 55-78% humidity. While its true there is some variance in output over those ranges its also true to say that the variances in between each of those three runs in each seperate session have been greater often than the variances between the conditions on seperate runs. To be honest fuel quality between fills can also make a difference. Also the engine temperature at run is fundamental. If its too cold the spark/combustion event may not be efficent enough - if too hot the reverse.
Ive given up looking at other peoples Dyno charts with their version of a mark up on RWHP etc. Ive seen people adding from 10% to 20% mark up. This is where the "science" becomes alchemy. The only charts Ive used myself are like you say the comparitive ones 1:1 TCF to give an idea of what improvements or changes have been made. Historically Ive posted charts with a 9% loss factor on Dynapack which are conservative (but no one can argue about inflated figures then). From here on in Im simply posting actual RW figures. Ok on the Dynapak I agree that they are 3% over in comparison with a roller/brake dyno but thats for someone else to adjust when comparing. The fact is crank hp/lbft charts hide the facts through an individuals "guess" at drive train loss. Instead of "happy" dyno figures suggest you stick with the RW figures as you have and as you say its the comparison thats most important.
Geoffrey uses Dynapak hub dyno in his race shop so he is better qualified than me to comment....
50 bhp increase is very good for a set of mods for the 993. You should be happy with that. As your guys says driveability is utmost. No point in gaining another 20 bhp if its a mess to drive or stalls every time you slow down!
Cheers
M
Lucky there are two coils in the 993 and I only lost the secondary one. The dyno showed AFRs across the range of 0.87-0.91 during the dyno runs with the secondary coil down. Nothing dramatic at all. Infact within the line of what we were expecting with the new cams.
Colin covers it off perfectly in this thread below. The secondary coil will cause some retardation. Maybe a reduction in power of up to 10% (probably not easily noticeable on the street). Interestingly unlike on the 964 it can be almost impossible to know you have lost the secondary coil. The car runs pretty much as before but obviously you dont have the benefit of the extra spark. The sparks in the 993 dual dissy system are fired simultanously not with a time lag like can be the case in other dual coil set ups. The give away is stalling/idle issues where the spark is not strong and the fueling may be richer.
Anyone experiencing similar running issues (especially with LWFC and hotter cams) should check the coil packs. They fail rarely but they do fail (as I found when I researched Rennlist).
Heres Colins thread with dyno graphs to show the difference bwteen one coil and two and also Motec and non motec NVR - its a great read:
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...eferrerid=6980
Interestingly I had replaced the plugs, HT leads, distributors, disti drive belt and bearing, alternator bearings, all belts and MAF with new ones during the project. Factory injectors were fully serviced (and shortly to be replaced with the new hi flow ones when the LINK ecu comes online). The wiring harness was replaced during the recall in 2005. Now the dual coil pack is replaced with a new one, and a new aftermarket ECU is installed basically all the electrics have been refreshed and one would hope will last another 18 years before needing any attention!
Regards the Dyno. Ive run 4 sessions to date on the Dynpak 5000 over 10 months. Temps have ranged from 17-24 celcius and from 55-78% humidity. While its true there is some variance in output over those ranges its also true to say that the variances in between each of those three runs in each seperate session have been greater often than the variances between the conditions on seperate runs. To be honest fuel quality between fills can also make a difference. Also the engine temperature at run is fundamental. If its too cold the spark/combustion event may not be efficent enough - if too hot the reverse.
Ive given up looking at other peoples Dyno charts with their version of a mark up on RWHP etc. Ive seen people adding from 10% to 20% mark up. This is where the "science" becomes alchemy. The only charts Ive used myself are like you say the comparitive ones 1:1 TCF to give an idea of what improvements or changes have been made. Historically Ive posted charts with a 9% loss factor on Dynapack which are conservative (but no one can argue about inflated figures then). From here on in Im simply posting actual RW figures. Ok on the Dynapak I agree that they are 3% over in comparison with a roller/brake dyno but thats for someone else to adjust when comparing. The fact is crank hp/lbft charts hide the facts through an individuals "guess" at drive train loss. Instead of "happy" dyno figures suggest you stick with the RW figures as you have and as you say its the comparison thats most important.
Geoffrey uses Dynapak hub dyno in his race shop so he is better qualified than me to comment....
50 bhp increase is very good for a set of mods for the 993. You should be happy with that. As your guys says driveability is utmost. No point in gaining another 20 bhp if its a mess to drive or stalls every time you slow down!
Cheers
M
Last edited by Macca; 07-04-2011 at 11:23 PM.
07-04-2011, 09:16 PM
#44
Pro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks M for the link. I dont know exactly what happened to that 993 that blew up. Its something like when you break a belt in a dizzy on a 964, and keep on driving it hard is what happened.
On a side note, Andy T of Flatsixonline, the shop in Sing, told me that the black 993 RSR done by 9M, featured here in RL, suffered an engine breakdown. So many probable causes like poor fuel, driver error coupled with the high c.r. of 12.5. Maybe Geoffrey can chime in if its true. I mean, everybody knows that car.
On a side note, Andy T of Flatsixonline, the shop in Sing, told me that the black 993 RSR done by 9M, featured here in RL, suffered an engine breakdown. So many probable causes like poor fuel, driver error coupled with the high c.r. of 12.5. Maybe Geoffrey can chime in if its true. I mean, everybody knows that car.
07-04-2011, 11:17 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
Hi Camlob.
Yip. A broken dizzy on a racetrack could do that. Infact I think the racetrack and constant high rpm will be the test of any weaknesses in fueling and timing etc.
I wasnt aware of the issues with the 993 RSR. It was a highly tuned vehicle (400 bhp?) and the owner seemed competent at pushing it hard. Given that type of use for long duration anything can happen. Im sure Colin can provide the sypnosis for what happened....
Keep us updated...
Cheers
M
Yip. A broken dizzy on a racetrack could do that. Infact I think the racetrack and constant high rpm will be the test of any weaknesses in fueling and timing etc.
I wasnt aware of the issues with the 993 RSR. It was a highly tuned vehicle (400 bhp?) and the owner seemed competent at pushing it hard. Given that type of use for long duration anything can happen. Im sure Colin can provide the sypnosis for what happened....
Keep us updated...
Cheers
M