Geoffrey

Ok, here you have it. This is a comparison of an average stock 964 vs the 9M USA kit installed and tuned for USA 93 octane fuel. When I say stock, I mean cat, both mufflers, stock chip, in good running and well maintained condition just like it came from the factory. It is representative of an average stock car and is within 3hp of the best stock one we've tested. The 9M car has the following:

MoTeC ECU
Fabspeed Headers with heat
Fabspeed dual outlet exhaust (I'd rather have a single, but they don't make it)
964 heads rebuilt, ported with 993RS valves
New design 9M USA cams, built in the USA
9M induction pipe and K&N Muffler
993 Throttlebody

The MoTeC car starts with the twist of a key, idles at 1100rpm cold, 900rpm warm and uses the idle control valve. The car is equipped with a LWF and has no stalling issues. There were no wires cut in the conversion and the alarm system will deactivate the ECU, just like a factory car.

The test conditions were:
300rpm/sec ramp rate through the pull (about 18 seconds on the 9M run)
Stock engine was tested with the dyno cell at 75F degrees
Stock engine was tested with the dyno cell at 30.065InHg
9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 93F degrees
9M engine was tested with the dyno cell at 29.816InHg
SAE correction to a standard day on both cars
Both were tested with the cylinder head temp at 120c (via MoTeC and Porsche System Tester)

The blue lines are Torque at the rear wheels
The green lines are HP at the rear wheels
The solid lines are from the 9M engine
The dotted lines are from the sock engine

The torque line does not cross the HP line at 5252 because the scales are different. The left scale is torque and the right scale is HP.


Because of Previous Rennlist Posts:
The numbers in the dyno charts are RWHP and I will not make any effort to convert from RWHP to FWHP, nor will I make any effort to compare these numbers to some other dyno test run at some other place on some other day, even if it was tested on a Dynapack dyno. I also don't care if you think the numbers are too high, too low, or wrong. This chart is for comparison only against a completely stock 964.

While I have tested a number of 964s in various states of tune, all with the same testing methodology, I'm not going to compare the 9M conversion to anything but a stock car. If you personally have a modified 964 and think it is better than stock, go have it tested against your friends stock 964 and post the results. I don't care about every combination of air filter, muffler bypass, RS, non RS, chipped car out there. I have enough data on my own to compare against.

I am not going to address any issues of running without knock sensors as this car was tuned for 93 octane fuel and that is the minimum fuel that this car requires. It has built in protection for high air temp and cylinder head temp to prevent it from ever knocking. The kit can be tuned for any fuel including 87 octane if one desired.

If you think Motronic ECUs are better, good, I'm happy for you, go find yourself your own thread and talk about your success there. I'm not going to compare and contrast another engine builder/tuner's approach as there are many different approches for increasing power and the 9M USA kit is only one of them. This is the only one I'm going to discuss.

HoBoJoe

Awesome! Thanks for posting!

Ritter v4.0

Sick numbers Geoffrey. Nice job.

Do you have the AFR numbers as well you can share?

Geoffrey

The AFR changes depending on what load and RPM then engine is running at. At WOT, the AFR is a constant .9 lambda. At cruise the engine is at 1.0 lambda. The factory AFR changes quite a bit at WOT from .95 to .86 lambda

N51

Geoffrey,

Why your preference for the single outlet exhaust?
The incredible torque the engine produces is the real eye popper here!
Congratulations to you, 9M, and the owner!

Geoffrey

There isn't a factory piece for the left side cutout and that leaves you with cutting the factory piece or purchasing a fiberglass replacement. I don't like either of those options.

bgiere

Approximate/ballpark $$ ? and is this something you (meaning Racetech/Geoffrey) can install and service? Do I need to ship you the whole car or just the engine...BTW, I am impressed!!

wsybert

WOW, impressive numbers.
Thanks for sharing Geoffrey.

Bill Verburg

Nicely done!

along w/ the 993RS valves, were the ports opened up too?

Is the 5600rpm torque dip attributable to rsonance flap operation?

Geoffrey

Brant, the pricing will depend on what all is done. In this case, it was the MoTeC conversion, +1 camshaft, top end rebuild, and the addition of other parts like headers. I'd need the whole car it will be dyno tested as a package on a chassis dyno. I won't ever send an engine out without it installed and tested in a car. That leaves too much room for mistakes and finger pointing, especially if another shop installs the engine. When the car is returned, it runs like a production car with no issues.

Hi Bill,

The 964 ports are 41mm which is very similar size to the 9M billet heads and is closer to ideal than the 43mm 993 or 45mm 993 RS/RSR heads. I've done quite a bit of flow bench work with the heads over the years, and opening the ports up drops the velocity quite a bit. The ports have been cleaned up and slightly reprofiled to help straighten out the airflow path.

The dip at 5600 is from the resonance flap. With the longer duration and higher lift camshaft, the resonance flap is not as useful as with the stock camshaft. I spent about 3 hours on the dyno with this engine and would have liked to spend more time working with the resonance flap operation to try and work out the dip. The heads were flow tested with the intake and exhaust manifold in place, which is how the camshaft is built after plugging in the numbers obtained from the flow bench and taking into consideration the desired RPM range. I'm not sure the flowbench can simulate the resonance flap operation since only 1 runner is used for testing. It is something I'd like to look into further.

NineMeister

Well done Geoffrey, nice job!

I would first like to thank you for placing your own reputation on the line with your customer in order to deliver him the 9m Motec +1 package, in doing so I know that you took a considerable leap of faith which would not have been an easy one to take.

Before anyone asks, maybe I should also point out that this was an entirely independent effort on your part and along the way you have also verified the engine modification philosophy that I followed in doing the original conversions in the UK, have proved the theories to yourself and gone on to achieve the results that are clearly shown above. Naturally I am delighted that you have now independently proven that the world is still round by achieving nigh-on identical results to similar 9mUK Motec +1 conversions, it now feels good not to be the only salmon swimming up the river!

Here's a graph of the measurements we made on two 964 engines, one of them is Tony Taylor's original 1989 964 with a good Motronic MAF conversion, the second is Will's 1991 964 with the 9m Motec conversion and the third is Will's car again but with the 9m Motec +1 package, I have corrected all of these runs to SAE standards to make it easier to compare the results (we usually use DIN which would show a higher figure). For the record Will's car made 342hp corrected at the flywheel, if we use a nominal 15% transmission loss this equates to around 290hp at the tyre, Geoffrey's result at the hub is a little higher as should be expected.

As Geoffrey stated in his opening post, any comparisons with other tuning methods have been done to death previously and are hence for you to debate elsewhere, you now have independent results from both sides of the Pond which seem to correlate closely enough to eliminate any doubts about testing methods and fuel quality. In the meantime feel free to ask anything you like about the 9m Motec & +1 conversion and we'll do our best to answer them accurately.

DrJupeman

Those dyno result shows the stock 964 to support the theory that Porsche under-rates their HP, no?

Geoffrey

Charlie, no. The stock car was used because that is a baseline that has been well established and I wanted a benchmark that can be reproduced. Stock cars have been within a 5hp range on this Dynapack dyno.

Porsche may or may not under rate the HP, I have no facts to support that assertion one way or the other. If I owned an engine dyno and used the same testing methodology as Porsche, I MIGHT make that type of statement and be able to back it up with facts.

tonytaylor

Geoffery

Thanks for posting the dyno chart which appear to show gains in line with similar conversions.

My C2 is running a 9M dual exit exhaust but without cutting the factoy part of fitting an after market one. The left hand side exits behind the PU pointing downwards.

Thats my 964 with the MAF kit that Colin has used as an example and with that in place it was a quick car. Faster than a standard 964RS which I'd been able to demonstrate on many occasions. The 9M motec kit +1 is a massive leap in performance. After a long dice with another Porsche owner we had a chat in the pits and he told me I was edging away from him out of the corners and it was taking all the length of the straights to get back on terms and he was ina 996RS.

Hopefully I'll be at Oulton on the 30th so if there's anyone else driving on that day maybe they'd like a paseenger lap or two for a comparison.

NineMeister

Thanks Tony, thought you would be lurking and see your dyno pull.

For reference Tony's engine now has a Motec +2 kit (3.8 pistons & cylinders above the +1) with the addition of the new 9m equal length header system. Hopefully we will see the car back in the shop in a few weeks time to have the latest version of the camshafts and pistons fitted, with a wee bit of luck you will then be more of a match for that 996RS.