When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Everyone is excited to see your build be a success and we're all jealous of that mad powdercoating...but take the chip of your shoulder bud. You are bound to butt heads in a technical forum over stuff like this, but citing "abuse" when people disagree with you about something is childish regardless of how strongly you believe something. You can reply to this however you want, call it "abuse" or whatever. Just let stuff slide, you've already established your achievements, you should have nothing to prove.
Would it possible to explain exactly what your on about??
924 2.0 weight? what's this got to do with the weight of a 924S 2.5 ? before and after extensive weight modifications ?
The 2.0 924 Block is not Steel! .......It's Iron!
What the Heck are you going on about outboard Yamaha Engines!!! ?
What relevance to this have to my thread? Engine, power and the vehicle weight?
Which bit are you claiming is exaggeration exactly?
My weight advance is hiding ?
Have you been Smoking something?
R
924 weights just over one ton and yours is right on the spot. Its not even close to extensive weight modified. Search here a bit and find out what extensive weight modification is. Yours is not even close.
Mildly modified late 944 na engine is also nothing to write home about, so what's the big deal?
There are some really genuinely impressive builds here and yours is not even close to that, its more of a smoke and mirrors kind of deal and I am not new to these so I know damn well pair of oe mirrors don't weight 6kg as you claimed somewhere and then deleted post.
Yamaha was mentioned for comparison, to remove as much weight as that ob weights, you'd have to remove engine, wheels and all body panels and probably more. Its easy to imagine ond of the biggest outboards beside 924 and how much material is 250kg. That kind of weight just doesn't dissapear that easily without cutting off BIG chunks of car.
You are acting as if you are the first person alive to modify 924 but guess what, you're not so just stop the bull****.
Yes your right vw block is iron, I mix name for steel and iron since english is not exactly my frst, second or third language.
And don't get me wrong, I love these cars and admire people that make them better. What I don't stand is your attitude.
924 weights just over one ton and yours is right on the spot. Its not even close to extensive weight modified. Search here a bit and find out what extensive weight modification is. Yours is not even close.
Mildly modified late 944 na engine is also nothing to write home about, so what's the big deal?
There are some really genuinely impressive builds here and yours is not even close to that, its more of a smoke and mirrors kind of deal and I am not new to these so I know damn well pair of oe mirrors don't weight 6kg as you claimed somewhere and then deleted post.
Yamaha was mentioned for comparison, to remove as much weight as that ob weights, you'd have to remove engine, wheels and all body panels and probably more. Its easy to imagine ond of the biggest outboards beside 924 and how much material is 250kg. That kind of weight just doesn't dissapear that easily without cutting off BIG chunks of car.
You are acting as if you are the first person alive to modify 924 but guess what, you're not so just stop the bull****.
Yes your right vw block is iron, I mix name for steel and iron since english is not exactly my frst, second or third language.
And don't get me wrong, I love these cars and admire people that make them better. What I don't stand is your attitude.
My 924S 2.5 and any other do not weigh just over a Ton!
1260kg , that's a ton and a quarter..
There are very little comfortable "road cars" that have lost 250kg, not to mention many or any 8 valve 2.5 / 2.7 motors used on the road that have eclipsed 200 bhp.
But you quite clearly have some sort of issue with me, my build and virtually anything I mention, you have been warned and reported...
I'm sure it must be jealously as your also slagging Great Britain..
Your keep insisting my figures are exaggerated and nothing according to your opinion is of any substance whatsoever..
Your pretty much the only person that thinks an N/A 924 with 200bhp per ton is not a great result.
I think it's fair to say your a Genuine Forum Troll, rude and an idiot.
Guys, calling people an idiot is not acceptable on Rennlist. It's okay to disagree, but please go after the idea, not the person.
I totally agree, However in this case it's been used with 100% validity.
You only have to view the aggressive content, that is being written and portrayed to me personally and the negative accusations.
This thread has in the Title the word "Abuse" for this very good reason, a select few seem to disagree the factual information I quote and their content reads and feels like they are just out for a fight / debate from relentless personal attacks.
Very sad that such people exist, but they do, as many others I'm sure are more interested in the R&D and the real results on many peoples automotive Porsche projects......
Yes, so sad. In perfect world facts could be made up and posted on public forums, and everbody would high 5 and clap with but cheeks. So cruel and unfair.
Yes, so sad. In perfect world facts could be made up and posted on public forums, and everbody would high 5 and clap with but cheeks. So cruel and unfair.
R,
Just let stuff slide, you've already established your achievements, you should have nothing to prove.
I'm keen for my question repeated below to be answered from any of the sceptics... ?
Here's a application with a a 924 fitted with a 2.7 engine, No AFM (MAP)
And a fully mappable ECU, a race cam , and possibly wasted spark, maybe different injectors etc...I'm not 100% sure on the spec...
Why would this be 18bhp down on my engine which uses all stock Bosch AFM, Injectors, Coil, Dizzy etc.. ?
Look at the torque ? that's way down on mine.........
Surely this modern superior technological amazing electronics should be +18bhp more than mine, as I'm using that terrible AFM !
Another customer application from this UK company was a recent 944 2.5 with a fully rebuild engine with better injectors, head grind, AFM delete, Race Cam, ECU upgrade etc..this one wad claimed in a Magazine to be 175bhp...this is only 13bhp more than the standard 163bhp figure.....
Although I believe this engine was only pushing out 144bhp before the rebuild, which is common for engines to not be near the actual Porsche figures..
Does this sound poor to you ? considering the total cost for this spec, built, fitted and mapped etc must be over $7000 !
And most importantly why has this modern technology fallen short of the terrible stock Bosch components now almost 30 years old?
The figures speak for them selves...there's no shoulder chips here..?
I really don't know what else to tell you.
I have been running a MAF or MAP conversion for over 3 years now, and have a few times switched back to AFM (for emissions testing) and the driveability/power difference is like pulling a parachute.
But to flat out deny/ignore the value of 20+ years of ECU progress, especially when you look at any car built after say 1990, and not a single model still used the AFM setup? Yet BHP across the industry has skyrocketed?
.
Then tell me why does my AFM stock system out perform the MAP systems I've found as quoted on this thread ?
This is an old fiberglass speedboat. It weights exactly 250kg. Isn't it wonderful how with magick and things you do, one can get rid of weight of complete 4.6 meter boat from a simple small car as 924. Maybe you discovered how to defy gravity? Artur C Clarke stuff?
I bet if you put stone in place of AFM it would outperform everything out there since - magick yo.
Then tell me why does my AFM stock system out perform the MAP systems I've found as quoted on this thread ?
It's a simple question.
R
Well, I'll try an honest answer, let's see where it goes.
Does your car have a catalytic converter? I think not.
The stock 2.7l 944 did and had 165 bhp & 225 Nm. When I was discussing engine option for my car with my mechanic he immediately said that that engine will be good for ~180 without the cat. I think this was really the case in the '80s & '90s; cats robbed performance. If anybody has any proof for the opposite, I'm all ears! In the meantime, I'll hold this true.
So basically you have a 2.7l engine with cat removed and nothing else it could have ~180 bhp.
You have a worked head and a cam, those two can easily be good for the extra 25 hp.
The car at Augment that you are referring to may still have its cat which can explain why it has less power.
So I think there's nothing here that proves that the old engine management system is superior. Only way to know would be you going to Augment for them to do a back-to-back dyno with their stuff and the stock thing.
Anyhow, I'm amazed by your torque figure, it's the same as an S2!
Edit:
I predicted 191.6 bhp which was the closest bet.
The missing 13-14 hp is likely due to:
- remapping (5-10 hp I guess)
- ported head (seems I was a bit pessimistic on this one but it still does not look like a massive improvement)
08-18-2016, 04:38 PM
