NineMeister

Nope. I'm only saying that the engine made a 12% gain with the kit as measured by the 9m Bosch dyno using the same test proceedure, calibration & DIN standards that I have used for years. No more, no less. How you interpret the results I have measured is up to you.

I've also driven the car extensively and can confirm that it feels easily way quicker with the conversion, so much so that I have decided to buy another set of parts for myself and permanently run Motec. However nobody has to take my word for the performance, you are all more than welcome to visit 9m and drive it for yourself.

Lorenfb

"So basically what the factory top notch engineers and their unlimited budgets achieve with years of R&D can be decimated by simply slapping a Motec."

Not!

All well designed engine management systems, e.g. Motronic, Motec (maybe
not quite a Bosch - no knock control) achieve the same results when compared
with the same fuel and ignition parameters. Where the misrepresentations
occur is when those parameters are modified to achieve better results,
e.g. 'pushed' timing maps.

Bottom line: Basic engine design limitations cannot be overcome by a simple
change in an engine management system!

trophy

welcome again loren, rowing the same old boat and not providing any value to the conversation.

camlob

Let me try to umpire whats going on. Jean is making a point that putting a motec on a stock engine will not get that much results. Correct? But he is not questioning that tuning an engine with mods, can be done with a motronic. His points show that Porsche has done continuos development over the years and that it would be hard to improve on that.

Colin's case, and the case of most tuners, show that Porsche has left some room for improvement in the table. His new heads, combined with his cam profile, induction system, exhaust etc produce a result that is comparable to modern cars.

I would think that most tuners outside the aircooled area, like GMG and Sharkwerks have introduced tuning kits for the 997 GT3's. Right? GMG, in an Excellence article, has boasted of an increase of 30 hp with just their headers, without tuning. GMG also has a 4l kit, both bore and stroker, to produce 500hp.

Sharkwerks, has a 3.9l kit, which also produces 500hp.

Manthey racing, has been racing a 3.9l GT3, when the factory told them it couldnt be done. They have been racing a 4.1l lately. Again contrary to what the factory believes.

If Colin is wrong, then, most tuners I mentioned should be questioned. But that cant be the case. Racing brings out the best from engineers. Thus we will have improvements.

When I was considering a head, Bill D. of extreme cylinder heads said that his heads, together with other parts can bring the output to 120hp/liter. I saw this in a Pelican thread where he was introducing his heads.

The velocity concept of Colin in his heads is not new. Being a Ducati owner, there is also a shop in the U.K., who also re-shapes the ports to make it smaller for faster velocity. His concept thought differs from extreme cylinder heads, where their valve sizes are much, much bigger, while Colin's heads are smaller.

So am I right that Jean is questioning the motec capability to increase hp on a stock engine is in question? It is a valid question, but Colin has dyno sheets to prove it. This discussion is good so that a buyer will have a "full disclosure" of the points involved.

On a personal note, it is indeed hard to achieve the stellar results of Colins 4l car. But I am happy where I am right now at 350hp and torque at 300lbs. I think a 320 degree cam with some good heads will provide the extra kick. I dont intend to replicate the exact dyno nos Colin shows.

But given the limitations of the 993 chassis's width, maybe I shouldnt. LOL....

Jean

Camlob
You raise several great points..

I am not questioning Motronic, rather opposite, saying that you can tune just as well or better than on Motec including some safety parameters, key is to find a tuner who has access to what is needed. There are a few out there. Otherwise a Motec is definitely a nice option, that doesn’t however do any magic with numbers.

Manthey Racing works in conjunction with Porsche Motorsports on certain product testing on the ‘Ring and they are supported by Porsche to develop and race the 3.9GT3 for VLN. The stellar 3.9 GT3 that Manthey developed with all the bells and whistles and access to Bosch factory engineers has a displacement increase of 2.6% and a torque specific output per litre (BMEP) of + 5% more than the base GT3 engine…only. That sounds in line with everything we saw earlier in this thread.

I bought a set of Extreme cylinder heads for my race 993 turbo earlier last year, these were developed also with state of the art “F1 technology”, with larger and lighter valves, porting, flow simulations and so much more in the valvetrain etc.. they are a work of art, and believe me very expensive, I expect very limited gains in torque specific output per litre. In this department, the factory 4V watercooled GT3 heads are as good as you can get in performance heads, don’t expect anyone to do much better on a bench with CFD or a million dollar budget, it won’t even buy you the tools they use.

To beat the factory volumetric efficiency on an engine takes much more than what meets the eye. Of course add timing and go aggressive on some parameters on a Motec, or Bosch alike, and you can increase torque some, but everything is done for a reason by the factory, you need to keep the engines reliable and streetable, and especially be able to operate them under any octane levels safely…Hence the knock control by Bosch as a safety measure.

Yes one should question many of the dyno charts posted. Testing methods and equipment can very easily distort the numbers. Do a truth test by looking at specific outputs and you will make a much more informed decision about the claims that are out there.

Jean

No interpretation of the results, plain and simple factual data from your own dynos and posts, a STOCK 993 engine carrying a 9M Motec ECU has an increase in torque specific output of 12%+ vs. a stock engine on your dyno, I am using your dyno, your comparison, and your readings, which for this arguments sakes I will not dispute.

In other words your Motec-slapped stock 993NVR engine with some more aggressive timing and AFR, some fuel and exhaust, has torque output per litre higher than a GT3, higher than a 997 Carrera and higher than a Cup car. Gains that are higher than what factory achieved by moving from air cooled to totally redesigned watercooled engines that also happen to be a worldwide benchmark of efficiency between car builders.

Even more, you also did better with a 993 stock engine than their Cup car engine, which has state of the art heads, racing cams, valves, cooling, tuned for racing etc.. Those same heads are used for 1000+hp turbo applications.

So now, we are not debating anymore that your peak dyno readings are inaccurate, which I believe was clearly shown and admitted, but also the comparison between torque curves on the same engine and on your same dyno is inaccurate and overestimated. You simply cannot improve by 12% a stock engine's BMEP.

Your 2V aircooled cars in the graph I posted earlier, have the highest (or maybe second highest?) BMEP in the world of any naturally aspirated 4 stroke engine ever built by ANY firm, aircooled or watercooled.

Now that we have proven that all of these dyno numbers are evidently wrong, both in peak readings and even just for comparison purposes and using like for like dyno and methodology, it might be worthwhile putting a substantial effort in recalibrating or revisiting the methodology used in testing. People make purchasing decisions based on these posted numbers among other things, I hope.

Pity there is no admission of all of this inaccuracy, like what Weltmeister did a couple years ago on the other forum, and taking action to recalibrate or revisit whatever dyno charts are posted for their mathematical logic, instead of finding angles to justify such unreasonable data.

I rest my case!

Jean

Harald, 37?? In fact I might be half your age!!!

172 for the GTO is a good number, nothing to cry foul about, and pretty much in line with other Porsche high performance air cooled engines. A stock 993 engine with 190+ simply because it has a Motec is indeed another issue all together!!!

I believe the only thing that transpired from the dynos posted is that not only the peak numbers are overstated as you yourself noted, but that also any comparison between engines is totally meaningless, since same engine is showing such a jump in BMEP, it simply CANNOT be true.

Wouldn’t be simpler to just recalibrate that thing or make sure the data on the graphs has been checked for accuracy and “stress test” before posting it on such an educated forum?

I honestly do not feel like debating this ad eternum, I am sure you and anyone who wants to see the issue can see it straight forward, and whoever does not, will never see it.. It simply is clear as water, and there are as many opinions as people in the world

Lorenfb

"not providing any value to the conversation"

And what is the value of this thread other than to suck-in the naive to
promote Motec which is a waste of time and money for most and sell
engine mod kits?

The typical tuning marketing hyperbole: "Porsche left HP on the table
that can easily be harvested by simple tuning". Sorry, but the facts
over the last 20 years don't corroborate that. But as usual, there's always
the naive to exploit like lemmings.

evoderby

Jean, let me start with saying you are a great debater.....you collect and use the data available to support your theory/opinion and ignore or lead attention away from what's there to potentially undermine (part of) the position you've taken.

I'm not being cynical here either, I respect this.

Whereas this discussion has shown 9M numbers can't be compared 1:1 with Porsche AG brochure tech data, and I agree it doesn't matter whether Motronic or Motec is calling the shots (as long as they're the right shots), I still don't agree with you that comparing 9M to 9M data produces unrealistic percentage gains by default.

Again, the year is 2011......as stated the now almost 50 year old '62 250GTO has a BMEP of 179 (not 172 as incorrectly mentioned in your reply). Compare this to a BMEP of 182 for the 3.8 RSR a whole three decades and a bit later.....a 1.5% difference.

When further analyzing the above example the GTO does so at a CR of 9.8. I don't kow what CR the 3.8 RSR runs at but I assume it's at least 11.3 as found on the standard 993. This difference in CR alone accounts for 6% of total BMEP.

In other words when downtuning the RSR's CR to 9.8 it would have a BMEP of around 171....making the GTO engine 4.5% more efficient!

I therefore think the important question that anyone has to answer for themselves:

Do I believe that 21st century technology and insights can make a mid 90's 2-valve 6 cilinder boxer engine perform at levels matching or higher than what Ferrari already did in the early 60's and Porsche themselves did in the early 70's???

If your answer is no, then the discussion stops and we simply agree to disagree.

If however your answer is yes....then the additional question should be what increase percentage seems realistic??

Well first let's try to match the GTO's CR compensated BMEP to the 3.8 RSR. This would in fact yield the RSR's 182 BMEP to 190.

When taking things a step further let's say almost 50 years of additional insights and technology not only allows to match 60's BMEP but gain a very conservative 5% in additional performance. This would raise the RSR's BMEP to an even 200.

Taking the above hypothesis into perspective and running it against the 9M Singer engine we see the following:

9M dyno shows 340 lb.ft. peak torque. From the limited amount of samples we've seen this should be corrected with 13% to match Porsche TQ in that rev area. This makes for 301 lb.ft. Porsche TQ, or a BMEP of 195....

....this falls well within the limits of my conservative 5% - BMEP of 200 hypothesis threshold.

To me this sounds very realistic as a CR increase from 11.3 to 12.5 can already be accounted for 80% of this 5% increase. But then again this still is just my educated opinion....not solid fact.

In summary what the above shows is that the 9M Singer engine's torque readings converted to Porsche TQ show a 7% BMEP increase compared to the 3.8 RSR, and according to my personal hypothesis on the subject is more than realistic. When converting max HP it shows a healthy 13.5% increase over the RSR's 350 Porsche-HP with a number of 397.

This only leaves the 964 Motec discussion, a conversion of which goes from 350NM stock to 390NM both measured on the 9M dyno. Let's start with saying the Motec conversion consists of more than Motec alone:

* cat replacement
* cup pipe
* Map sensing - no restrictions in filter to throttle
* K&N filter
* Larger injectors
* Mapping

Ok. I hope we can agree that the 964 RS shows 325 PorscheNM compared to 310 for the regular Carrera 2/4 by means of a more aggressive ignition map.

This represents a 5% increase in TQ and I can only assume 9M have at least copied the RS map if not further improved it.

Then there's the catless exhaust. I've seen some dyno's of this being worth 15-16 HP in itself without any mapping. Let's say these dyno's overread by 15% --- 12.5 HP. This represents a 5% increase in max power......does 2% extra in the max Torque rev range sound conservative enough???

Now for the following, 964 mapping has shown that the injectors max out before maximum power can be made. This situation doesn't effect the engine at max torque revs.....however more modern spray pattern larger injectors are used to access additional top end power.....

....these combined with performance optimised fuel mapping, in tune with the catless exhaust and non barn door type AFM therefore account for the last 5% in torque increase.

The latter is based on the fact that a 12% difference measured on the same dyno is a valid comparison....I see no reason why this shouldn't be the fact.

Ok so in isolation a fuel map (Motec in 9M's instance) optimised for modern spray pattern injectors, a restriction free inlet as well as catless exhaust can yield 5% Torque.

The larger injectors at the same time allow for max power to be delivered higher up in the rev range with a max of 303 Porsche HP or a 21% increase over stock, or 10% over stock RS+catless exhaust (270-275HP)

+5% BMEP + 10% HP


The above is strictly what the numbers say.....

Rgds,

Harald

NineMeister

Hold on a minute.

As quoted previously, 996GT3RS, 9m 3.8 race & 9m 4.0 race engines all run 90lbft/litre on 9m dyno.
Stock 993 in back of my 3.2 ran 350Nm/258lbft = 71lbft/litre
Stock 993 with 9m Motec System ran 395lbft/291lbft = 81lbft/litre.
That's 11% less torque per litre than a factory standard GT3RS.

Keep in mind that the 9m Motec conversion is not just an ecu, it also includes a set of larger flow matched fuel injectors, modifications to the intake system and is optimised for on the engine which has a hybrid 964/911 exhaust, no cat and for which the stock 993 Motronic ecu had not been remapped.

Am I missing something??

trophy

Loren you are a troll, you always have been a troll and will always be a troll.

This thread is talking about new options available for those that are either running non standard engines (Cams, heads, throttle bodies etc) or those that may be setting up to do so in the future.

Your continual rant on "pushing' timing and such is a waste of band width, and has been heard hundreds of times, however, understand this, No One Cares what you have to say, because of the way you communicate. I am sure you are a pretty smart guy when it comes to Porsche electronics, however you come across as a hurt school boy that no one wants to play with.

Let the informative and interesting thread continue.....

Lorenfb

"you always have been a troll and will always be a troll."

They always personally attack the messenger and not address the message,
especially when the message personally 'resonates' and they (naive lemmings)
can't technically challenge it! Just like what's common on the 'other' forum.

Jean

Harald,

You make me sound like an evil person. Reality is I am not filtering any information whatsoever, this cr@p takes so much time that this is not fun at all and I have better things to do.

The GTO debate honestly does not interest me and it is not because it proves me wrong at all. Please

To answer the question straight forward, and despite being a hardcore fanatic of aircooled engines for 20 years, NO I do not think that even in 50 years, the techonological advances will make the aircooled 2V engines any more efficient than the currently available Porsche watercooled engines... dream on

The graphs are self explanatory, and Colin's BMEPs having the highest BMEP (I only researched for 30 minutes on google, don't want to be accused of filtering info ) in the world of any 4 stroke, petrol based, N/A engine is pure delirium.

Larger injectors DO NOT bump BMEP and do NOT impact torque, only if the engine has fuel starvation and not enough fuel, but that is already factored in the combustion process!! Exhaust hardly gets you a fraction of a percentage gain on BMEP!! CUP and RSR cars have free flow with a hoooost of other improvement to breathing, cams, valves and breathing, and cannot get much better BMEP than street GT3 engines. Compression does not yield linear increase in BMEP but only a fraction again, there are several examples here on the graph to show it.

You said it yourself, Colin's dyno is optimisitic vs the factory numbers, by about 12-13%, that IMO is totally unacceptable. So that absolute number error has been established, and when Colin shows a dyno of 350lbs of torque, in reality it is more like 320lbs Porsche factory numbers... This needs to be understood by customers and forum readers. Then remains the comparability with other engines on the same dyno..... let's see..

You try to rationalize a BMEP improvement of 12-13% on the engine posted on this thread....However if you check my previous post for the changes between the 3.2 and the 3.6 engine that were needed for an increase of 14% or so in BMEP, radical changes going TWIN PLUG, in cooling, components, engine electronics, heads and displacement increase of 12.5%, compression, and so much more, and you seriously want to compare those changes done by the factory to what the STOCK engine (meaning unopened) 993 9M discussed here had done to it to achieve almost similar results?

Jean

Colin, I mentioned 996GT3, 997 Carrera or 996 CUP car, you beat them all with an almost stock engine.

I can understand a non tuner saying it, but you saying that larger fuel matched injectors (sounds so good) and free flow hybrid exhaust impact BMEP is almost.. funny. That dyno needs serious calibration, let's cut the BS.

NineMeister

Jean,
Please explain how a 993 with the same capacity but 11% less measured torque to a GT3RS results in a win for the 993?

Hmm, injector sizing.
Can I respectfully suggest that you and Loren may care to study up on the benefits of optimised fuel stratification within a cylinder and the affect it has on burn speed and mass fraction burn (mass fraction burn is the relationship between the fuel burnt in the cylinder to that delivered - the rest burns in the exhaust). Increase the burn speed of the mixture and you get more torque with less timing. Deliver the fuel into the cylinder at the optimum point in the cycle and you reduce port/piston wetting and mixture blow-through on overlap. Have neither of you ever wondered why every 964 engine that you strip has spotlessly clean intake ports?

Finally, the fourth win to optimal fuelling is that it helps to normalise combustion events. I best explain that one for those who have never analysed the combustion pressures of a production engine. The simple truth is that a variety of factors combine which affect combustion to the point that no cylinders ever produce exactly the same pressure for consecutive combustion events. The mean (average) pressure that all the cylinders produce is what is measured by the dyno as BMEP (brake mean effective pressure), however the BMEP is the difference between the IMEP (indicated mean...) and FMEP (friction mean..). In tests each cylinder will typically exhibit a scatter of approximately 5% around IMEP. Then you get variations between cylinders (caused by badly tuned exhaust, squish/compression variations, production tolerances, etc) which is usually in the 5% region as well, although in extreme circumstances 10+% is not unheard of. Hence if you could perfect an engine with exact tolerances, perfect squish, matching cams, ports & intake, then make a good exhaust header which is cylinder neutral, in theory you could gain 2.5% BMEP from normalised combustion events and probably the same again from cylinder matching.

There is a great article on combustion analysis on page 48 of the March/April 2011 edition of Race Engine Technology magazine that explains much of the above in more detail (for those interested enough to want to understand it).

So going back to the stock 964/993, are you absolutely sure that fitting a larger, more efficient injector with better atomisation & optimised timing can have no measurable effect on torque??
(I'd be careful how you answer this one.)


As for the calibration of my dyno, unfortunately Dynostar (who supplied the electronic/software upgrade) are no longer trading so this is no longer an option. However, there is a saying that it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools, so with that in mind I'm happy that because it fulfils the needs of my business as a development tool & a mapping aid, will still demonstrate before/after improvements to customers and said customers report similar gains when they have cars independently verified, until I win the lottery it will have to do.