Individual throttle bodies?

[944 man]

Id expect Tom Barker to be getting close to 200bhp with new injectors and reasonable cams (starting from a 160bhp engine, not a 150bhp engine). I was surprised to see that his gain was extremely modest on the P&911W journalists car, but I believe that he achieved 175bhp from his own car.

Considering that EMC series one engines were good for 180bhp (allegedly), then Id have hoped for more from a full Augment, but I expect that his economy was FAR better than the EMC engines managed!

Chris Whatsit from CDF Racing has made an adjustable cam wheel too, so timing the cam shouldnt be a problem if you use a regrind.

 

[Hallsy]

I wonder if he can make similar improvements to the 2.5 16v - you'd think with modern management there is potential anyway.

 

[944 man]

I think that he is doing it using 8v DMEs( and sensors). The 16v DMEs were a step ahead of the 8v version certainly, but theyre both extremely primitive now. Again, with a pair of cams...

 

[TTM]

The point is that the standard intake manifolds on any 944/968 were designed to maximise low end and mid range torque. Improving cam duration and valve lift is one thing, but won't bring much without reducing runner length accordingly.

 

[Andy97]

ORIGINAL: 944 man

Id expect Tom Barker to be getting close to 200bhp with new injectors and reasonable cams (starting from a 160bhp engine, not a 150bhp engine). I was surprised to see that his gain was extremely modest on the P&911W journalists car, but I believe that he achieved 175bhp from his own car.

Considering that EMC series one engines were good for 180bhp (allegedly), then Id have hoped for more from a full Augment, but I expect that his economy was FAR better than the EMC engines managed!

Chris Whatsit from CDF Racing has made an adjustable cam wheel too, so timing the cam shouldnt be a problem if you use a regrind.

I guess that the problem with the Journalists car was that it was only producing 144 Bhp to start with so a gain of 20 + Bhp is perhaps not to be sniffed at (and that wasn't with a new cam etc, just the ECU, I think).

Augment reckon they have never seen an 8V engine produce any more than that, and reckon the original factory 163 Bhp claims were for an engine without ancillaries????

Comparisons with EMC are very difficult as no two dynos are the same. It may be that the same engine on the dyno that EMC use reads 160 Bhp before their mods and 180 afterwards. Whilst the same engine on the Augment Dyno reads 144 before and 170 afterwards. Who knows. I guess it is the % increase that matters rather than the absolute figures.

 

[944 man]

I wonder where that leaves your S? Assuming that it was a 150bhp model then maybe around 130bhp? To qualify my remarks about Augment - I was surprised that they only managed 160-odd bhp when Toms development car has got 175bhp or thereabouts.

I suspect that the EMC engines were mildly blueprinted and I know that their fuel economy was terrible afterwards. I think that Toms 175 engine compares very well to that and Im looking forward to seeing what he can achieve whilst retaining the original inlect tract, as a Piper regrind will be reasonabl;y cheap, but a new inlet manifold with individual throttles or even with a conventional throttle, will be expensive.

 

[Andy97]

ORIGINAL: 944 man

I wonder where that leaves your S? Assuming that it was a 150bhp model then maybe around 130bhp? To qualify my remarks about Augment - I was surprised that they only managed 160-odd bhp when Toms development car has got 175bhp or thereabouts.

I suspect that the EMC engines were mildly blueprinted and I know that their fuel economy was terrible afterwards. I think that Toms 175 engine compares very well to that and Im looking forward to seeing what he can achieve whilst retaining the original inlect tract, as a Piper regrind will be reasonabl;y cheap, but a new inlet manifold with individual throttles or even with a conventional throttle, will be expensive.

Agreed. It was a concern to me that if I had a 150 engine that it may be very down on power and that a reasonable amount of money may just get me up towards a 163 engine! I suggested just buying a 163 engine as the first thing, if I don't have one already. Interestingly, both EMC and Augment said it was a waste of time to do the engine swap as, in practice, both had always been found to be so close so as not to make much difference!

Having read Jon Mitchell excellent post I won't be going down the ITB route! And no one seems to offer it anyway. May just stick to the Augment ECU, a fast road cam and fuel pressure regulator. We'll see where that gets us - a not to expensive way to get on par with the pesky mx5 mk3's hopefully!

 

[944 man]

I agree with Thoms post about inlet manifold length, but youll lose a good deal of the inlet tract length by ditching the AFM and the engines never really going to rev, so I dont see them as a real restriction when the cam has been changed. The cam restricted the engine and the long tract was the cherry on the cake - it complimented the cams characteristics but it couldnt make a great deal of difference on its own.

 

[T3rra]

Fit 2.5 16v engine 190 bhp that 40 bhp increase and same displacement. Then again s2 3lter will look the same.

 

[Andy97]

Not allowed to change engine type, so have to keep the 2.5 8v

 

[944 man]

I will wager that a 2.7l with a new cam and Augment innards for the ECU will see a real 210bhp, maybe more. If you can cope with a slightly lumpy idle then a J. Milledge 8SR-14 or maybe something even wilder...

Itll look just like the engine that you already have, too.

 

[edh]

..but that's cheating...

How about gearboxes? Is the 924 box lower geared? I bet it is.
I had two 924S's, and 86 and an '88. I'm absolutely sure that that '86 was shorter geared. The guys at PH were convinced that all 924S's had the same box. It was a bit of a shed when I bought it, so could have had another gearbox fitted..

Other than that your plan sounds right - no point in spending huge ££ on a car like that

 

[T3rra]

Maybe just Enter in 2.5S ?

 

[944 man]

Theyre all the same, as far as I am aware. To the best of my knowledge, racing at every level is full of cheating.

 

[Andy97]

I think I have read that the 24S gearbox has the closest ratios and seems to have a reasonably low final drive. I have no other 944 tocompare it to on track except my old 44T road car but that was a different kettle of fish, though.

Certainly am in 5th on the straights after Snetterton and I have not managed that inany of my other previous road car based race cars.

The 2.7 engine would be cheating, I'm afraid!

There was never any expectation of achieving mega horsepower but just a few extra would be nice!