Macca

Hi evoderby, camlob,

I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in above posts. The final figures is circa 300 bhp and 265 lbft using a 100% TCF which I think is the most accurate and conservative number for this Dyno.

I have never seen Colins RW numbers only his TCF numbers. I cant comment on his dyno set up or TCF mark ups although I would be interested in seeing the raw RW numbers for his 993/964 motec conversions.

The graph posted does indeed show from base to modified. 10% increase. I re read some posts and dyno graphs from Colin on 993 NVR motec conversion. That engine had a free flow catless exhaust and upgraded injectors. Again around 10% was what he expected to see. I know he got 315-320 hp from that conversion. If I use a 15% TCF I also get the same. Ive looked at the base 2000 rpm type results he got from his engine before and after tuning and both the stock factory and tuned are higher at that level so perhaps his dyno reads differently.

This is why I specified my outcome in actual raw RW data. The error for interpretation perhaps remains lower this way.

The cams comment was beased on some additional dyno data and runs I did not include on that attachment. The issue we had after install of cams was that we lost power on the previous set up which included SW chip. Dach X. and RSR. This drove me down the aftermarket ECU road. However it turned out the failed coil was responsible for those losses. Having said that the new cams didnt actually bring any real gains in peak number sto teh table at all when the coil pack was replaced. They changed the torque curve to make it fatter between 2200-4000 rpm and there weres ome more modest changes also but they didnt add gobs of power or torque at all. After doing much research I discovered a mild cam upgrade like mine is more about the type of power delivery, feel and where its happening than any massive overall increases in power or torque. Otherwise I guess this would be the simplest and cheapest power increase available to us. I do not believe you can find 30 bhp for example using stock manifold and valves just by dropping in a cam without significant other changes.

Although I went for LINK ECU due to stalling and rough idle issues which it turned out I may not have needed to bother with had we correctly identified a failed coil - and not for purely performance related reasons - I will agree that the best money spent according to my personal dynos and experience - are SW chip, Dach X, RSR mufflers and of course a good set of electrics (i.e. dissy, MAF, injectors, leads and plugs). If you make these changes alone you get around 60% of what I have now for less than $2800 installed. The cams were teh least cost effective change for me. the LINK ECU has value beyond maximising power in that it can greatly enhance tractibility, engine response and driveability and of course future proofs you for other changes.

Are the cams correctly set up? I dont know. Like camlob said they were set up at the measurements of 1.8mm lift as prescribed by the supplier John D. My Porsche shop did this and took their time so I assume done correctly. My tuners spend 8+ hours on dyno and a few on teh road tio tune the vehicle and they did check timing etc but made no comment of any issues they saw with that.

I can ask them if they have the values from the LINK and report back. theres always the chance the timing could have been slipped?

Cheers

Macca

Camlob. Great seats!

No. My dyno shop have not run a 997.1 GT3 on their dyno sorry. They do have engine dyno that they calibrate their Dynapak to when they build a special engine like V8 Touring Car etc. Mainly they are a Rallley and targa preparation shop (these being the most popular motorsport events in NZ). They have been tuning LINK for almost 15 years and had the Dynapak for about the same. Both are NZ inventions so plenty of back to base support for these here. I see teh LINK is used by a number of 944T owner son this board.

Cheers

camlob

Hi M. Thanks, Ill take some shots of the recaros out of the boxes. Yeah your cam comments are IMO right. Thats why make it worthwhile and get DC 60s!! Ha.ha...of course you need ITB's. But if you look at my dyno sheet, the power is going up, up....thats why pauter rods were a must for me.

You know I would have still enjoyed my car like with what you said, SW chip, dach x pipe etc. Newbies should take note of our experiences and expense!

But the 4l kit is what I long wanted for. And the ITBs too. Maybe I should blame Colin's vid of the black RSR! LOL.....

Parts are arriving this week....I did some body work and will post some pics. If you noticed in my earlier posts, my wheels were portruding. Now they arent! So the past week was body work and painting week.

Macca

Hi Camlob,

Sounds great. Looking forward to more pictures....

Im about to install coilovers this week. I also had agressive rear offsets (54ET on 10.5"). If you get stuck later on you can do what i did and have a machine shop plane off some material from the rear inside hubs. I managed to change the offset 3mm (making 57ET on 10.5") this way and with the mildly rolled rear fenders Im hoping that should suffice to dropping the car a further 10mm to the lower end of the RS settings. I got the idea from Jaeger who owns the red 993 speedster - he had same done on his Classic Fuch wheels.

Cheers

camlob

Here are pics of the un-boxed recaro's. The model is a limited edition super stark. Combination of their own version of alcantara and some alcantara. You should feel the texture to appreciate it.










I had the same idea of machining my wheels!! I was afraid that it would ruin the integrity. I should have asked the forum!!

Well here is my new rear end.
And this is a pic of the just sanded painted rear end but still needs a rub down. I tried to copy the singer look of a higher lip. Customizing a 993 fender is stressful!!



Before shot.



After shot.



a pic of it just hammered! ouch!!

Macca

Those seats are interesting - havent seen or heard of that model Recaro before.

The fenders look like they came out well. Is the bottom picture before? If so at that height i doubt you would run into serious problems in any case.

You can machine the rears but only if you have enough "meat" on teh hub. You need to retain 8-10mm thickness before the lug hole to ensure proper strength.

Cheers

993polartip

Camlob,

Nice wheels you got there! Clinchers or tubs? Mavics?

Wow. Am really impressed with your car's mods. Inside and out. I like the rears, clean work. Am sure you can't wait to put em all together. Am sure it's a worthwhile journey. Let's go for a spin when done.


Gimme a holler.

cheers
993polartip (raffyo)

camlob

Thanks! They are mavic's latest cosmic carbones clinchers. Carbon spokes! Really good wheels on flats and rolling hills. You got the eye man! LOL......

Here is a pic with it on my bike....

camlob

The seats are from Recaro Japan.

Yes, the bottom picture is a before. The middle photo is the after. I dont thin it will rub since there is much room compared to before. I wasnt rubbing that hard actually, only on extreme dips while turning. Well, will have to see once the car is finished.

camlob

Just realized I didnt have a proper full shot of the seats.

camlob

Photos of my new steering wheel.





And where my ecu is located, at my rear end!

993polartip

Sweet ride a 695 look!!!

Man your 993 is looking mean, love it. Will be keeping an eye on this thread to see how well your project turns out.

All the best!

evoderby

Hi Macca, let me first and foremost compliment you on a) sharing your development data and b) responding in such a mature and honest way to questions and comments.

I think this really helps the community understand which mods work to what extent etc. and life unfortunately is not always as simple as component A = 10HP, B=15 HP and C= 11 HP therefore ABC=36HP.....

Also I think the hub dyno you've used is a great tool since it eliminates tire drag which all vary through size, tire pressure, single or dual rollers etc. It also means however that a 15% correction factor for a hub dyno is non-realistic, whereas on a rolling road this makes 'better' sense.

As far as 9M figures go, I don't know whether Colin's ever dailed in engine dyno figures against the rolling road he uses....or 'simply' uses percentage gains vs. known figures of a sample of standard cars.

The fact that you're still running cats is a significant difference to 9M figures (I think, please correct me when wrong) and can explain an important part of the difference in output.

As far as mapping is concerned, the drawback of full programmability is the operator can get it fully wrong ;-) Fuelling isn't that difficult to get right through using wide band lambda monitoring and using AFR target/load tables.

Getting ignition right is much much harder. I've seen spectacular results on the dyno through changing timing by only a few degrees....trouble is where to start????

As a result of the above I have seen many ignition maps that are plain rubbish (especially in mid range/medium load); "the car doesn't knock so please let's leave it at that and move on to fuelling". Again I don't know what has been done to your car but here are some thoughts:

In general I'd try to at least copy the standard (or 964RS 98Ron) ignition map as a base and if the dyno operator is really capable start doing MBT (minimum advance best torque) mapping.....keep advancing timing until no extra torque is generated whilst closely monitoring the onset of knock.

This process is pretty harsh on the engine as it has to be kept in steady state dyno mode for extended periods of time. This is also where experienced Porsche engine builders come in to play as they've already done lots of this on their own test mule engines.....

This leaves the cams...I'm sure 9M uses their own design with different lift, duration and LCA so it's a bit like comparing apples with oranges.

How sad am I that this stuff leaves me up at night?;-)

Macca

Hi Evoderby

Thanks for the compliments. From my experience people usually talk up their mods regardless of whether they have delivered to expecation or not. Given Im not trying to create a track monster here nor win pub bragging rights but instead create a "total package" that meets my needs, I feel full disclosure is more beneficial for all than "in my opinion"....

You may well have a point regards the ignition advance. My guys arent famililar with tuning a 993 engine so thats definately an area worth looking at. They recommend a 9-10% TCF based on their engine dyno.

Once Ive test driven the car and made sure Im happy with the driveability I will look at returning to the dyno to do some final tuning. I have not doubt from talking with them that there is still a little performance on the table as my original concerns had been focussed around getting the best throttle response, eliminate stalling, tidying up idle and create a smooth tractable engine with good useable torque.

The Dach X cross over pipes are cat delete. So theres no cats with this engine. Theu use a lambda probel for tuning but the car doesnt have one installed from factory (its a M150 dirty fuel option car from the fatory thus uses a CO2 potentiometer in place of active o2 sensors) so mapping on the road is via MAP sensor and alpha-n charts.

Im a novice when it comes to things like ignition maps etc. What I know they did do is they took a data feed off the motronics unit prior to the change to LINK and then used these as base maps. You could well be right that they then relaxed a bit on pushing the timing when they could have pushed harder....

Camlob. You have plenty of room to play with now. Its good. You can even try a 5mm spacer on the rears now to fill out the guards a bit more if you want to....

Cheers

evoderby

Hi Macca,

I recently fitted DTA programmable ignition to my 1971 Mini Cooper S, one thing I have also ordered but haven't fitted yet is an additional control unit called J&S Vampire Knock Control.

I recently noticed the orange motec'ed 993 for sale in Hong Kong also has this device fitted:

https://rennlist.com/forums/8600929-post1.html

It is a very clever knock control system that allows you to program an over aggressive advance curve, which the control unit then pulls back (up to 10 degrees) on a cylinder per cilinder case.

When mapping on the street or dyno you simply keep advancing until the system intervenes.

What is needed is to carefully calibrate the systems sensitivity, every engine has different noise characteristics and the control unit needs to distinguish noise from knock.

This can be learned by first running the engine with a very safe map that is guaranteed to not induce knock and dail in increased sensitivity until the system shows it's registrating knock, whereas you know for sure there is no knock. From this point dail back the sensitivity a small bit so that it no longer 'hears' there is knock but just noise...and Bob's your uncle. Well almost...afterwards you can start increasing advance, to make double sure in the beginning use a trained human ear and 'det cans' to counter check whether the system is intervening in time.

As said I haven't installed it yet, but based on reviews from some very professional engine builders I'm expecting it to be of value. BTW my intention is to use it as a tuning device to tailor my map to the brink of intervention, so afterwards under normal circumstances I don't have to rely on it....however when for instance running into a bad batch of fuel the system's ready to save my behind....

Just read the testimonial on the bottom of the page by Ian Whiteside who I think works at an insignificant company called Illmor;-) :

http://www.jandssafeguard.com/SafeGu...timonials.html

Maybe this can be of help?

Cheers,

Harald