gtfour

So glad to hear.

thundabyr

@Rick DeMan Hey Rick, do you guys accept cars from oversees? I'd like to ship my 718 gts to you for the engine build this winter

SpeedySpidey

Probably best to just send him an email:

rick@demanmotorsport.com

HNL

Picked mine up today and can’t wipe the grin off my face. Can someone message me info on how to join the Facebook group? Thx

downhiller2010

Getting mine back with just the gearing, flywheel and diff tomorrow!

Rick DeMan

Yes, anytime you are ready

Cadubya

@Rick DeMan Any 4.7 update?

colnagoG60

No more Boostane, and higher HP? Game changer?

doobooloo

This is very fascinating, thank you for sharing. Interesting that M Engineering has already done a number of tunes on DeMan 4.5's.

That said, as a pedestrian observer and NOT an expert in tunes and how things work, I have a number of questions...

1. How does one determine any inversely correlated relationship between power on dyno vs long term reliability or margin of safety? Of course, there could be positive relationships as well - better timing with smoother running engine overall putting less stress on the components etc. but I've got to think this is a very complex set of relationships at play. Maybe one that will never be known to the world through a catastrophic failure or excessive wear given the extremely small sample count out there of cars that have received the DeMan treatment plus additional third party tune.

2. If M Engineering has done tunes already on other DeMan 4.5s before, why didn't they just take a previous tune and load it into Matt's car? Clearly there seems to be some benefit of iterating on a dyno for each car... is this because of sample variation specifically among DeMan's builds, or just something that exists even for two identical production cars due to various tolerances and other factors? It's particularly interesting as the dyno-optimized result ended up squarely within the historical reference points of other 4.5's tuned by them, so there were no deviations in the outcome.

3. Overall, I'd think real world use especially on a track would subject the engine and the car to a far wider range of input shocks - abrupt changes in throttle input, mechanical feedback from vehicle momentum or braking (and shifting!), G forces acting on the fluids and various components from cornering and also bumps on the road, etc... this points back to point 1 earlier, is it possible that a particular tune produces amazing results in a controlled linear environment but also produces unexpected and possibly negative results in real life use from the perspective of both performance and reliability?

Would be amazing if @Rick DeMan could opine on these 3rd party tunes being offered on the 4.5L engines!

colnagoG60

Mitch has pretty much addressed all that on his 2 appearances on the Smoking Tire Podcast over the past year or so. Both vids are probably posted in this thread. Can't be an "off the shelf" tune if not everyone chooses the same options. But basically, tuning the 4.5 was "hard", erring on the side of safety initially.

Vids:

doobooloo

Oh amazing, thank you so much for your kind response! Will definitely study these podcasts this weekend!

user1029

Does M engineering offer 981 4.5L Cobb protunes? I don’t mind using boostane and I’m just dreaming how much more horsepower I would get with their tune

doobooloo

Just went through both of these. Indeed very insightful on many fronts. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Also really great to hear that Mitch and Rick have been communicating about these tunes. I had a 981 4.5L before and would love an opportunity sometime to get the 4.5L back with a 93 tune!

downhiller2010

A 93 981 tune the engine builder stands behind would get me to pull the trigger on this for sure!

Scott O'Connor

Rick DeMan has tunes for different octane levels. Most customers want max power, and opt for 100.